Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 22 July 24 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a1, g1, a7, WP:NFT, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jazzle II[edit]

Jazzle II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

not notable and patent nonsense, previously prod'd; article creator removed previous speedy delete tag. JGHowes talk - 18:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly tagged this for speedy deletion as per the nominators nomination of patent nonsense under G1.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burning of Parliament[edit]

Burning of Parliament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic, poor article name, not a topic that needs a synthesis. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment When viewed as "List of Parliament burnings", I could see it as an encyclopedic topic. See Google webpage and Wikipedia's treatment of the topic. But the list is off to a bad start since it lacks references. Also, there probably should be a unifying theme to the burnings such as "last, desperate act by opponents." GregManninLB (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I haven't looked too extensively at the articles for each listed country's parliament, but what ever information is missing there needs to be merged — even if it is just bits and pieces of the UK parliament section. And move the picture there, too :). If a "List of parliament burnings..." article were to be made, it should be a list of any major government building to burn down. That may include the 1812 burning of the U.S. White House, or any burnings of Japanese government buildings, for example. A parliament is basically a legislature, so why limit such a list to only those countries who actually use the word "parliament"? This is all hypothetical at this point; right now, the best option is to merge whatever necessary and delete the rest. Okiefromokla questions? 02:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think it's a valid topic. All of these incidents should have individual articles, and this article should be a list with summaries for each. It should also be retitled to reflect a scope encompassing the burning of legislative buildings in general. Everyking (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I support a "List of" with links to relevant articles.--Poetlister 13:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a reasonable stat. There is to reason not to have survey articles of this sort. DGG (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm all for keeping if, and only if sources can be found. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completely arbitrary grouping of information. Just because individual instances of this happening are notable doesn't mean we need a group article as well. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was - article was speedily deleted by User:Gwen Gale. --Stormie (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minos Cluster[edit]

Minos Cluster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be an extremely minor subject, even within Star Wars universe. In any case, there's no assertion of notability, or even real-world context, as the article is written entirely in-universe. I'd say it belongs at Wookiepedia, not Wikipedia. Mycroft7 (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Ching[edit]

Steven Ching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

failed political candidate; no references; non-notable Primal (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per above, sourcing issues, and no unsourced articles on people, please. rootology (T) 14:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. —Sean Whitton / 10:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Alcondez[edit]

Alejandro Alcondez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actor. Article was speedily deleted in July for being "G11: Blatant advertising: Article about an a real person, which does not assert notability (CSD A7)". At the time the article was written by the subject. I don't notice any significant changes in the new article. Article includes phrases such as "it was then that he knew that acting was his passion", " he had several dreams that one day he would work along side him", "It's Mission is to bring happiness and smiles to all children in the world. Our Belief is that 'United we make a Better World' 'Unidos Hacemos un Mundo Mejor' words of wisdom by Alejandro Alcondez.' CyberGhostface (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Awful style is not a reason to delete an article. Lack of notability is. The IMDb listing at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1565807/ suggests that he is notable, but I would normally expect to find more hits using Google News and Variety.com. --Eastmain (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello Thanks for the input I realize that the article Is not all completed, and I want to thank you for pointing out the phrases that seem personal (will take them out) this was cause took the info I found from the Web and some websites of this actor, according to his profile on Imdb he has made a lot of films in the past. Can't find much info on the news because his work has not reached mainstream media in the US, but I know he is widely know in Mexico as a Actor from the 90's and recently in a few other Films. I would appreciate if you can suggest what to avoid and what too include in this article to make it better. PS. Some of the actors listed have worked with him in a soon to be released Film Called "Cielito Lindo" according to what I've read in the IMBD database http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1565807/ Cgomez007 (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - What suggests that these films on IMDb are notable? Remember that unlike Wikipedia, IMDb has no requirements for notability, these films could have been low-budget films on limited release without importance. Nothing to the contrary has been established. -- Atamachat 15:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IMDB is good enough for me.Wikigonish (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are a number of non-notable actors and films on IMDB.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:ENTERTAINER defines what is required for an entertainer to be notable. It's important to remember that the roles an actor has must be in notable films. While I'm seeing on IMDb and in this article that he has starred, written, produced, and even co-directed numerous films, those films have to be shown to be notable. I can't tell from IMDb or other sources whether or not these films are notable, but the burden of proof lies on the person who wants to include this information in Wikipedia, not those who challenge it. -- Atamachat 15:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In looking over the acting roles in IMDB, what stands out is that they almost all are tagged with a (V) indicating a direct to video release. That generally indicates the films are non-notable. However, they appear to be Spanish language films for the Mexicn market so somebody conversant in Spanish and familiar with Mexican films might be able to provide some more insight into the notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - So far the only tentative claim this article has is IMDb. The only Keep arguments have cited IMDb entries as a reason. It would be good to find out about those films because so far it looks like there's no valid reason to keep this article. -- Atamachat 21:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IMDB as a sole source is not acceptable, as the vast majority of the data there is user-submitted and does not go through much in the way of a screening process. JuJube (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I would say he passes by enough of the threshold for retention, and being an actor, unless he stops working, his notability will only grow past the point he is at now. rootology (T) 15:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while the films he has appeared in have been mostly minor, the fact that he also is a director, producer, and writer, gives him an amount of notability --T-rex 23:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Really? If I make a low-budget film off of a digital camera, which I write, produce, direct, and star in, and release it to a very limited audience, does that make me notable? Just because I did everything on it? Where in WP:BIO does having multiple non-notable roles make you notable? -- Atamachat 16:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of notability meeting WP:BIO. Tan ǀ 39 01:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject has an extensive career. And for the record, the IMDB requires that all submissions need to be cleared by the site's editorial staff before it goes online. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have an extensive career, but I don't meet WP:BIO. Can you specifically state why you think he meets notability criteria? Yer pretty good at finding sources; if you can expand your argument, I'll probably change my mind. Tan ǀ 39 04:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Boyle[edit]

Leila Boyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

failed political candidate. not held first level political office Primal (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Ty 23:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. Traviss Corry[edit]

A. Traviss Corry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Biography of an artist. Google doesn't turn up anything except this guy's website, and Facebook and Flickr type links. There is a half-hearted attempt to assert notability by mooching it off people like Dali right at the bottom, so I brought it here. Edit: Oh yeah, the article was created by the subject and apparently has been tagged for speedy before and contested. Reyk YO! 23:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I originally (a couple days ago) userfied this article, but then it came back to the mainspace today. I then tagged it for CSD, and that tag was removed by User:Eastmain stating 'possibly notable'. Possibly notable or not, the article does not show notability, also fails WP:V... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. And the sentence that some of his works "are held in collections internationally paired with..." doesn't mean a thing to me. Which collections are that? And how are they paired? Or is this just a grand way of saying that "Tiny Canadian Gallery" happens to be a member of the same art-dealer's union (or whatever) as "Major European Museum"? Sounds like typical "Gallery Speak" to me, sorry.  Channel ®   00:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems pretty far from notable without adequate citations.Wikigonish (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Modernist (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not yet notable, but the claims were just enough to prevent a speedy. DGG (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unknown artist as demonstrated by the lack of reliable sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources show he exists, but give no indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Scott (police inspector)[edit]

Dave Scott (police inspector) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable outside of his town. civic high flyers shouldn't make the cut. Plan8 (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable enough. rootology (T) 15:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no claim to be notable --T-rex 23:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per the consensus of this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art Renewal Center[edit]

Art Renewal Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article had been deleted as a PROD but restored. Although technically an explanation for contesting a PROD is not required, this had been deleted and then restored pretty much verbatim. I feel a discussion at AfD is necessary. Notability has been an issue for some time and there are no third-party references to establish notability. After this time, it appears that no third-party references are available and notability has not been established. freshacconcispeaktome 22:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconcispeaktome 22:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've done a search and posted sources on Talk:Art Renewal Center. There are enough to justify retaining the article. Ty 01:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Ty's sources demonstrate, the Art Renewal Center is frequently mentioned as the one the most prominent advocates of its unpopular views on modern art. It has also garnered notice for its impressive "online museum", and I've added a reliable third-party source to the article, a review from the Intute:Arts and Humanities database (a project with support from Oxford and the Arts & Humanities Research Council, among other relevant organizations).--ragesoss (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ty and ragesoss. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Kevin (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All African Poker Championship[edit]

All African Poker Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable poker tournament DimaG (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High-impact entrepreneurship[edit]

High-impact entrepreneurship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recreated shortly after deletion via PROD; the reason then was "An essay or reflection: WP:OR". This still seems very true. Also a WP:NEO with little evidence the term is used anywhere other than by the company Endeavor, which the article heavily features. The editor also created the (speedily deleted) article Endeavor (nonprofit) and has placed links to it all over the place - clearly WP:SPAM applies also. Ros0709 (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Erasure discography. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Erasure B-sides and non-album songs[edit]

List of Erasure B-sides and non-album songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable B-sides. All information is forked from respective singles. Fancruft. Please see the AfDs for Garbage B-sides, List of Radiohead B-sides and List of Coldplay's b-sides. Fails WP:CFORK and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - I created this eons ago, I know now B-sides articles are being done away with. Since I'm slightly biased I don't want to vote for an outright deletion but would be happy to merge it into the main Erasure discography page if that would work better. A simple "B-side" column to the singles table should do the trick. - eo (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
B-sides are discouraged in discography articles. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Merge where? Backed up by what sources? -MrFizyx (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: well I was originally thinking merge to Erasure discography but looks like the best place to list B-sides are in the individual single articles, which is also fine. - eo (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if you wish. It is nicely organized and wouldn't make the discography article too long. -MrFizyx (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, B-sides are discouraged in discography articles! Tenacious D Fan (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to discography. "discouraged" or not, it is clearly the best, and consensus, place for this information. And the discouragement is not even a guideline, just a wikiproject proposalYobmod (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Kevin (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Libertines and Babyshambles bootlegs[edit]

List of Libertines and Babyshambles bootlegs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable bootlegs. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars vs. Star Trek[edit]

AfDs related to this article:

Star Wars vs. Star Trek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Vague, waffly fancruft essay consisting almost entirely of original research and synthesis. Vquex (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This again? Delete as nn Star-cruft. Eusebeus (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article is unnecessary and should be merged into the Star Wars/Star Trek articles. – Jerryteps 22:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as "Star-cruft"; non-notable and wholly in-universe. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 23:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination fails to consider whether the article can be improved rather than deleted per WP:BEFORE and WP:IMPERFECT. Notability seems well established by reference to reliable sources and there seem to be plenty more, e.g. some news hits, and so improvement seems quite feasible. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The two separate subjects are notable but the rivalry between them isn't. Artene50 (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not for idle speculation about incomparable hypotheticals on the part of sci-fi fans, even if millions of us have engaged in this precise speculation :) RayAYang (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not an encyclopedia article, and not a reasonable subject for one. --Stormie (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why would this need to be described here at all??Wikigonish (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This rivalry is covered significantly in reliable sources as shown in the references section of the article thus establishing notability. The references directly cover the rivalry between the franchises so it is not synthesis to have this article. If there is original research it can be removed by editing and does not require the whole article to be deleted. Davewild (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete "My favorite movie is better than yours" is not an encyclopedic stand-alone topic. If need be, this can be covered in one paragraph in the top-level articles, but not as a separate article. – sgeureka t•c 09:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have made some significant changes to the article, adding a couple of good sources. These changes invalidate most of the above comments by showing that there is significant critical commentary which compares the two works in a notable way. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still not impressed. It's still all synthesis -- WP:SYN is the reason why I nominated it for deletion in the first place. Vquex (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sections I added are largely paraphrases of the sources cited. Please indicate an original conclusion to which you object. Or consider Brin's point about Star War's Nietschean message as contrasted with Star Trek's quite different position. How is this source misrepresented? Colonel Warden (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure I agree the rivalry is a notable concept and occurance and should have plenty of secondary sources (if Sci-Fi magazines are secondary sources in this case) but, feel the article needs a significant rewrite and probably a renaming (for easier search purposes). Whether is is "beyond saving" I'll leave up to the more experienced. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but ONLY if rewritten from scratch. The topic is viable, and the fact it's recognized by Forbes confirms its notability (if all other sources were removed, Forbes alone would be enough). Problem is the article has become too much of an essay, though I disagree about it being cruft. This article could be rewritten easily by touching on the Forbes article and also citing things like the documentary (which I believe was called Star Trek vs Star Wars) that was aired on television a few years ago. The rivalry between these two fan groups is very well noted and has been a major part of the SF world since 1977, so an article is fine. But the current one needs major surgery. 23skidoo (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as it is an incontrovertible fact that the subject has received non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, specifically articles devoted to the subject in Forbes and Salon.com, and the scholarly work of Russ (Joanna Russ (1978) 'SF and Technology as Mystification', Science Fiction Studies, 5, p. 254.) and the comprehensive response in Tullock et al. (Tulloch, John (1995). Science Fiction Audiences. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415061407.). The article has WP:PROBLEMS with WP:SYNTH, referencing and fancruft, but these are obviously irrelevant to the encyclopedic nature or lack thereof of the subject matter. Move to close per WP:SNOW. Skomorokh 16:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Skomorokh, that is an exceptionally poor use of WP:SNOW, which is itself highly controversial. I appreciate you have strong feelings that this should be kept, but in effect you are dismissing the opinions of many other editors; that comes across as hubristic and arrogant. Eusebeus (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong feelings about nerd arcana on the internet? You must be joking :) I am not dismissing the opinions of other editors; the last delete preference was voiced before multiple RS's proving notability were added, and not all editors are familiar with the distinction between the notability of a subject and the quality of an article. My move to snowclose was based on the (reasonable, I think) thought that no neutral editor in their right mind could conclude that the references explicitly provided fail to satisfy WP:N. Apologies if my tone came across as arrogant, English is not my first language. Regards, Skomorokh 17:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has been nominated for deletion before. See Talk:Star Trek versus Star Wars#VfD, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (recount), andWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (4th nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 3. --Phirazo 17:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you think this is bad, you should have seen it the last time round. It seems any article on this topic will backslide into WP:OR. All that can really be reliably sourced is the existence of this rivalry, but not much else. --Phirazo 17:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I must confess to being mystified with this comment; "It seems any article on this topic will backslide into WP:OR" is not only speculative, but also completely irrelevant to the notability of the topic. Please clarify how the coverage of the subject cited above is trivial or why the sources are unreliable. Skomorokh 17:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was an article on this before that was entirely WP:OR as well. After separate attempts this article still can't be written without editor's subjective opinions on this nerd argument. All that can really be said about this topic is that the rivalry exists. There may be some marginal notability, but there isn't enough here for an article.
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft, Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), and What Wikipedia is. Article could perhaps be expanded to cover other uses of the Star Wars versus Star Trek comparison, i.e. such as this. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't just say "cruft" -- I also said "original research" and "synthesis", thank you very much. Vquex (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is why I also said that it is unoroiginal research. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aside from the malapropical idea of "unoriginal research", those links you provide to are mere essays and convey nothing more than incidental personal opinion, save for WP:5P, for which you provide an idiosyncratic interpretation that other editors should in no way feel bound to observe. Jus' sayin' Eusebeus (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it is cruft. --Phirazo 04:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, it isn't. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If this isn't "content [that] is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans", than I don't know what is. --Phirazo 03:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Italicized for emphasis: "small populartion of enthusiastic fans"? I would have to say the population of these franchises "fans" is actually quite substantial. And in event the topic is documentable as in [7], [8], [9], etc. If the concept of Star Wars vs. Star Trek is worthy enough of a whole section heading in a published book, plus the other sources, it is worthy of an article. Additional published comparison can be found in this book. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep The original research needs to be removed from this and I'm loath to anchor an article on a column from forbes that is clearly filler, but sourcing supports marginal notability and the coverage is significant. Protonk (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has several references, so it can't be entirely original research. What can't be sourced can be removed later. Topic is encyclopedic and needs coverage. I also noticed significant improvement in just two days after AfD nomination, so there certainly has potential for development here. Keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, topic is adequately covered by existing science fiction articles and this essay isn't sufficiently covered in itself by reliable third-party sources to warrant its own article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lots of footnotes, why not spend time adding information to articles instead of deleting articles? Inclusionist (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete cruft that requires original research and wp:syn to make an article - so that's a no-no. (and no I wouldn't like a link to an essay called "don't call things cruft"). --Prisongangleader (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Indef blocked sockpuppet. Skomorokh 23:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • What are you talking about? There's abundant coverage of this specific (non-synthesised) topic: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]; Joanna Russ (1978) 'SF and Technology as Mystification', Science Fiction Studies, 5, p. 254.; Tulloch, John (1995). Science Fiction Audiences. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415061407. Please explain. Skomorokh 17:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but know the difficulties of the article. This article should be kept since it does or can review the topic, which is covered in reliable sources, such as Forbes magazine. There is a problem with this topic in that WP cannot engage in original research (which many editors would probably write a very good essay on comparing Star Wars and Star Trek). Therefore, WP must rely on reliable sources and there are certain some (which lends support for "keep") but these articles are limited. The potential problems of this article may point to "delete" but policy dictates that the subject, not the quality of writing, determines deletion. Good luck. Spevw (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:FANCRUFT WP:NOR and WP:SYN. I think this article sums up what wikipedia should not be. Furthermore just because the two notable series can be compared, does not make the comparison itself notable --T-rex 23:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What criteria of notability are you using to inform this judgment? On Wikipedia, a topic is considered notable if there exists non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Are Forbes and Salon not reliable sources independent of the subject? Is this coverage trivial? Please explain, as aside from the point about notability, your rationale seems to be WP:HOPELESS. Sincerely, Skomorokh 00:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes that coverage is very trivial. I'm not saying that these are not reliable sources, but rather that they say very little. While Star Wars and Star Trek are both individualy notable, the competition between the two is not. I don't see how WP:HOPELESS applies to anything that has been said. --T-rex 00:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • See below comment to Phirazo for more substantial sourcing. References to SYN and OR are only relevant in respect of HOPELESS, in my opinion. Regards, Skomorokh 03:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Cruft" is never a good reason for deleting, nor is a topic covered in secondary sources original research. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know you tried to delete WP:FANCRUFT, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it doesn't apply --T-rex 20:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Force is behind keeping this article; make it so. It is referenced in reliable, independent sources, so I have to ignore my personal desire to want to delete it.  Frank  |  talk  00:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article is pretty poor, but I've seen enough discussion of this topic in real publications to think the subject is legitimate. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are sources, but they are all lousy. The Forbes article only establishes that the rivalry exists, David Brin's Salon article is an opinion piece, the Harvard Crimson article is an opinion piece, the Times article doesn't even mention Star Trek, and the DVD documentary looks decidedly amateurish. The "Differences" section has a clear Trek POV (and conveniently forgets that Star Trek has a fist fight in every episode). The "Critical Commentary" section implies that Lucas is "defending" his work against Brin's article, even though the Brin article was published 4 months after the Lucas interview. The online section is mercifully gone for the moment, but it will come back, as it has before. People want this article to be about the long running argument as to whether or not the Enterprise could beat the Death Star, and the lengths some people are willing to go to to prove it. There simply isn't enough here to write an article. --Phirazo 02:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:POTENTIAL: "SF and Technology as Mystification" by prominent SF critic Joanna Russ in the academic journal Science Fiction Studies contains a lengthy comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars. Chapter 2 of Science Fiction Audiences by John Tullock (accessible through Google Books) contains a critical reading of Russ' work with additional commentary on the comparison, and Religions of Star Trek by Kraemer et al also contains a section devoted to the topic. To be blunt, I'm not sure you've done your homework. Regards, Skomorokh 03:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notice this section of a published secondary source in book form outright titled "Star Trek versus Star Wars" that contrasts the religions of the films in analytical format. There is more than enough to write an article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The stated topic here is the rivalry between Star Wars fans and Star Trek fans. The sources you give don't talk about that. --Phirazo 17:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. That's a call for improving, expanding the article. Not deleting it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • As a first step, I suggest you come up with some better sources. And some kind of consensus as to exactly what the purpose of this article should be -- a purpose that is not featured on WP:NOT. Vquex (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Enough have been presented to already justify the article's inclusion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              If you truly believed that then you wouldn't be continuing to respond to each and every new comment here which contained one of your keywords; it appears that the worthiness of an article for keeping on its merits is inversely proportionate to the amount of times you comment on its AfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia:SOFIXIT is a non sequitur. The article is unfixable. That is why it is up for deletion --Phirazo 00:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a verifiable rivalry, but should be moved to a more neutrally descriptive title, such as Star Trek-Star Wars rivalry, in line with such articles as Federer-Nadal rivalry or Yankees-Red Sox rivalry. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In violation of WP:FANCRUFT, WP:SYN, and others. Also seems to favor Trek. What's up with that? :) Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name blending[edit]

Name blending (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have a number of "Google unique" keywords which I like to keep unique down to just one web page. But I would not use any of them as personal name! This is a non-notable new idea supported by a few blog entries. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I have heard of this happening; back in 1982, there was even a federal court case involving two people, Dean Skylar and Christine Ledbetter, who won the right to name their child Rachel Skybetter. But it doesn't happen very often, so far as I can tell. Almost the entire article seems to be original research, sources notwithstanding. You can give all the reasons you want as to why nameblending would be done, even though impractical, but unless you can show that it's a trend of some sort, it's not notable. It's a lot easier to change your name to "Smith-Jones" than to "Smones", and a lot easier to change it back to Smith. Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. It's interesting, but that is not a valid reason to keep it. Vquex (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - no assertation of notability. Existence != notability.. Tan ǀ 39 16:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malt Star Beers[edit]

Malt Star Beers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable beer brand. ukexpat (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added a reference. --Eastmain (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The reference shows what is confirmed by the article Tempo Beer Industries, which is that the brewer is not called Gold Star, nor Goldstar; and that this product is not described as a "beer" on its label. In fact, Googling "malt star beers" shows it isn't used anywhere except in the article and in this discussion. Other than those small points, the article may be accurate. Redirect to the same place that Goldstar (beer) redirects to. Mandsford (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am sure this beer is available all over the world and is probably used in racing sponsorships somewhere. It is a major brand of beer. And I know the manufacturer is called Gold Star. Nesher Malt is unrelated to this beer. Go to holonfoods.com and look under drinks.

Kennedy & Co. 9:16 PM, July 23, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.96.119 (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. So it exists, but that doesn't make it notable. WWGB (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close to the Edge and Back[edit]

Close to the Edge and Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list of tour dates can be found on the YES website. It's also about a tour that never really happened. It doesn't seem noteworthy. Craig Montgomery (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per absence of delete preferences. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 02:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calleva[edit]

Calleva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self-promoting (advertising) article that does not assert notability. Was speedy declined, but article does not pass WP:N (or any of its specific categories). No relevant inter-Wiki links (all are to locations or activities). Google search only really brings up business listings. Booglamay (talk) - 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - author's username is a violation of username policy (for promotion) and a related article (Camp Calleva) was recently speedied. To clarify the above - the only relevant sections to the article (that don't merely list what the company offers or where they're based) is a history section - nothing of which shows notability. Booglamay (talk) - 21:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a big deal. If the article is deleted, it can become a redirect. If it's kept, a hatnote can be added. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the article as a redirect to Silchester Roman Town (which now redirects to Calleva Atrebatum). "Atrebatum" just clarifies whose territory it's in, so it's perfectly reasonable to refer to it simply as "Calleva" (like you don't have to say "Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire" or "Dallas, Texas" every time you refer to Milton Keyes or Dallas. For that reason the article Calleva should at least direct the reader to the Calleva Atrebatum article. If this summer camp is notable then it should either have a hatnote pointing to Calleva Atrebatum, or be a disambig page pointing to Calleva Atrebatum, the renamed article about the summer camp, and any other meanings that may turn up. If the summer camp is not notable then it should redirect to Calleva Atrebatum. Any of those three options would be better than deletion. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'd brought this up on the article's talk page. I'd even said that if this company is notable then a redirect won't be necessary. Based on the references given by Eastmain, I'd be happy if this article stayed. but - like Peterkingiron I'd propose the content of this page to be moved elsewhere and this one be made a redirect. Booglamay (talk) - 13:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those Black Desires that Torment My Soul...[edit]

Those Black Desires that Torment My Soul... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bootlegs. Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V.

Feasts EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black Legions Projects: Compilation 1995 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ambre Zuetki Vuordrevartre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Tenacious D Fan (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (for now). The article is currently one sentence, but according to Michig and Blackjays1, expandable. I fuly expect that they (or other interested editors) will do this article justice and expand it with references to show how exactly, again per the references, this particular producer is notable. I encourage anyone to resubmit this for AfD if the article remains a one-line stub. Keeper ǀ 76 22:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jake One[edit]

Record producer who fails WP:MUSIC guideline, lacks non-trivial references from reliable publications. Page created by user who has a history of ignoring verifiability policies, with WP:BLP specifically. JBsupreme (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Real name appears to be Jake Dutton. According to the New York Times, he had tracks included in the soundtracks of The Fast and the Furious:Tokyo Drift, Gone Baby Gone, and Get Rich or Die Tryin.[15] Has a substantial entry at discogs.com. Gets a mention here. There's an interview with him here. I suspect an article could probably be worked up which passes the criteria for a keep, although it isn't there at the moment.--Michig (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further substantial coverage: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. --Michig (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  18:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by length of coastline[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of countries by length of coastline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

My reason is essentially the same as the first AFD, but it's been over two years and consensus can change and I'm thoroughly unconvinced that ranking countries by coastline length is a legitimate exercise at all given the problems with doing so. The CIA site that most of this data is from simply lists them alphabetically. --Random832 (contribs) 21:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete CIA Factbook does not mention anything at all about where and how they obtained these figures. Unless the methodology is checked to ensure comparability of data, this list is likely misleading. Data may or may not be at the same scale. I might change my mind if someone can find a more reliable source that explains their methodology. --Polaron | Talk 21:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Arguing the methodology of sourcing is a valid and noble pursuit, but it belongs on a talk page. The nominator rightly shows that the "length" of a coastline is dependent upon the scale of measure but that isn't a rationale to delete the page. Unless we presume that the ranking itself is original research (and I don't see that claim advanced or supported), we don't have a compelling reason to delete the page. I would submit that turning an alphabetized list into an ordinal list by some feature is well within the sphere of "naive operations" permitted by WP:OR. Keep this article. Protonk (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know for a fact the CIA figures were actually measured by a single entity? Isn't it possible that they asked individual countries what their coastline lengths are and just put the figures together? One thing we should put is a warning that the figures may not necessarily be comparable as it is not known if they are all measured at the same scale. --Polaron | Talk 22:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is entirely possible they were measured by multiple entities, perhaps even as many as their are countries. But that isn't a discussion for AfD. If the validity of the source is being questioned (for the purposes of the article), then we can have that discussion on the article talk page or on WP:RS noticeboards. In this case if we presume the source is invalid that makes it invalid for all coastline measurements, not just measurements used to make a listing of countries.Protonk (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The CIA site that most of this data is from simply lists them alphabetically. constitutes a claim that the ranking itself is original research. It's only "naive operations" if it's indisputable that the numbers involved are comparable --Random832 (contribs) 02:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the problem? the CIA ranks them alphabetically but publishes the coastline length. The table simply orders them by coastline length rather than alphabetically. Nothing more complicated than creating a reverse alphabetical listing of countries, or ordering countries by Area (which presumably is also published in the factbook). the numbers are perfectly comparable. they are in the same units and are describing the same sort of things. this isn't an apples and oranges problem. What is in question is the validity of the CIA data. I get that. But because the data might be off doesn't make the article original research. It would make the article original research if (for example), the editor chose to make a list of "Awesome" countries by deciding that >x coastline meant an article was awesome. Or if an editor made a list of "countries with cheap coastline real estate" by taking the coastline data and determining the value of land from some previously unpublished formula. This is just reordering a list whose parameters are given. That is a naive operation. Protonk (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That list uses data from the CIA coastline length. Those arguments are only valid if we assume the data are comaparable. We have no way to be sure that the data are all at the same scale. If the lists are to be kept, there should be a prominent warning that figures may not be comparable. Also, the two lists are now essentially identical with the header sorting (assuming the sort works - it doesn't seem to be working properly riht now) so they should probably be merged (assuming this is kept). --Polaron | Talk 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, the validity of the data is not something we need to be discussing in this forum. Whether or not the CIA factbook provides same scale measurements for all countries is important but does not rise to the level of deletion. I'm fully willing to entertain the possiblity of a merger proposed through regular channels of the two pages (as they do seem to be duplicative) Protonk (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- the list itself provides the most excellent reason for getting rid of this indiscriminate collection of non-information: Since the scales at which the CIA World Factbook figures were measured is not stated, they cannot be relied upon even as a guide. Reyk YO! 22:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Protonk. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 23:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Protonk and re Since the scales at which the CIA World Factbook figures were measured is not stated, they cannot be relied upon even as a guide. Absent a better guide that no one has suggested, this is a pretty cool list. Since when did we begin demanding perfection in WP?--Mike Cline (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see any indication of consensus changing on this article since 2006. Perfectly viable. If the CIA Factbook is not being considered a reliable source (a laughable idea, in my opinion), then if you feel better putting on a disclaimer, then please feel free. I'm sure there are other sources for this information, anyway. 23skidoo (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Protonk. Clearly notable and verifiable. I can fully see how you can engage in abstract discussions about this: every coastline is infinitely long if you insist on measuring around every grain of sand, and then around the molecules in that grain of sand, and then around every atom of every molecule, and then around every electron of every atom and then around every quark in every electron. And so on. But that's hardly a deletion argument. It doesn't stop the CIA factbook being a reliable source, nor the subject being notable and encyclopedic. AndyJones (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List by important characteristic. The geographical and legal literature on this is immense, but we can still have a condensed presentation of a standard interpretation. DGG (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable--see for example [21]). Almanacs in particular (and our First pillar says that we contain elements of almanacs) typically have lists of this kind of real world information. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just realized there is something fundamentally wrong with the perimeter figures, which are currently calculated by adding the coastline figure and the land boundary figure. That may be ok for continental countries and single island countries, however this is obviously wrong for archipelagos. --Polaron | Talk 21:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per almost everyone. It doesn't appear consensus has changed. Edward321 (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - keep votes at last AfD were mostly some version of WP:USEFUL, furthermore the article even states that the figures are not comparable. As such we really should not be having an article comparing them --T-rex 23:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is the statement that the lengths aren't comparable that shouldn't be there. We have a reliable source for the information, and that is what WP:V requires. For wikipedians to engage in their own original research to cast doubt on the reliably sourced stuff is contary to WP:OR. To use a further reliable source that (quite rightly) points out that coastlines are fractal and therefore cannot be measured with precision and synthesising that into the statement "the figures are not necessarily comparable across different countries and cannot be relied upon even as a guide" is contrary to WP:SYNTH. It's also contrary to all common sense since clearly the CIA do use these figures as a guide. [This isn't an attack on those who added it: I can see where they were coming from.]
    • Whether or not this piece of WP:OR remains in the article, an article containing a statement as to the limitations of the reliably sourced information it contains is not itself a reason to delete the article.
    • To dismiss the keepers by reference to WP:USEFUL cannot be sustained. Even if every keeper was making a WP:USEFUL argument, a bad keep argument isn't a grounds for deletion. Well-sourced geographical data is at the core of what a good encyclopedia should contain: we're not discussing some obscure garage band. AndyJones (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see no evidence to suggest that this is well sourced. Pointing out that there is no reason to keep, is in and of itself a reason to delete --T-rex 00:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Protonk. John254 00:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No valid reason for deletion given, now or the first time. MickMacNee (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), per WP:SNOW - article is now also well ref'd. - Toon05 21:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venda Inc[edit]

Venda Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article reads more like marketing collateral than an encyclopedia entry. It was created and updated by a trio of SPA editors, hence the COI tag. My research found a ton of press releases from the country, but nearly nothing in the way of significant coverage, thus failing WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Kevin (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thieves & Villains[edit]

Thieves & Villains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Fails WP:MUSIC. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Kevin (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign Against Levels Motorway[edit]

Campaign Against Levels Motorway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not sufficiently assert importance of organization, and is currently focused around a single issue. However, the article claims it's been focusing on the issue for 16 years, which leads me to believe there may be evidence of notability out there. The original prod nom said "Does not assert its importance, and a distinct lack of reliable sources elsewhere: [22]", and an endorsing editor commented "I can't tell if this article is really about CALM, or is trying to promote its cause. Either way, the organization's scope is limited to protesting a single building project, failing WP:CORP." If the 1992 founding date is correct, though, it was working long before the current project was on the drawing boards. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: non-notable organization. DCEdwards1966 20:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ORG. Eusebeus (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is a badly written article about a pressure group campaigning against New M4. Highway planning in UK is an extremely long-winded process, particlarly if the funding is cut; hence the foundation date is not incredible if there was a previous similar project. I know of a campaign fund against another road deriving from the 1990s. The proposal was abandoned; something similar was against suggested and again dropped, but it might rear its ugly head again in the future. On the other hand this seems to be a NN presure group. I would suggest that the article be merged with New M4, but there is still the question of whether that article does not fail WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as original prodder. I can't find a reference on their Web site for the 1992 founding date. There is a reference to a road being proposed around 1999, but even then I can't believe a firm route would have been decided so quickly. Planning in the UK usually works to timescales of centuries rather than days. A project not far from where I live ended up left half-completed on hiatus for 10 years, even though the route had been decided and the plans fully-costed and approved. Whichever way you cut it, this article is unreferenced, and there is a distinct lack of sources around to justify an article. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tan ǀ 39 00:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2009 United States EPA fuel economy ratings[edit]

List of 2009 United States EPA fuel economy ratings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
List of 2008 New Zealand fuel economy ratings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Information readily available elsewhere. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Less information than the source. Any articles that link here can instead link to the source. DCEdwards1966 20:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The information is not readily available elsewhere. The source is not as easy to use, because it does not give combined mpg, but instead uses pretty useless weekly fuel prices times 15,000 miles to give annual fuel cost. E85, for example has a highly artificial price per gallon much lower than regular gas right now, so even though a flex-fuel vehicle gets much less mpg on E85, the source makes it look as though your annual fuel cost would be lower. Fuel prices are highly volatile this year, making it silly for the EPA to report cost instead of mileage. Also this article allows sorting by column, which is very useful for comparing cars, and which can't be done in the source. Also the source is a pdf file which for many people is harder to use than HTML. Both articles would have been included in the fuel economy in automobiles article, but the tables are too long for the article. Also, there won't be less information than the source when I finish, I am just starting with the most important information first, the combined fuel mileage. Napalm1232 (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO. Eusebeus (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see fuel mileage listed in that section. If you are considering it to be a statistic, all it says is consider putting them into a table, which has been done. In addition, both tables now show both mpg and L/100km. Napalm1232 (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasonable compilation of material. This is one ofthe functions of Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's not "listcruft", whatever that means. If the information is readibly available elsewhere, that means we have a source to write the list from. We don't delete every article about a film on Wikipedia just because the Internet Movie Database exists. Every article on Wikipedia should contain information that's readily available elsewhere. The no original research policy says "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." --Pixelface (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. The topic is well-constrained and verifiable. - Eldereft enjoys his 34 mpg eftmobile 11:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. BJTalk 02:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiril manolov todorov[edit]

Kiril manolov todorov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobio of an opera singer. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Well, it depends. I have posted not his latest bio /because i don't have it currently at my disposal/ but i am planning to do so as soon as possible. Currently i know that he has contracts to sing at Split opera, Skopje Opera, Sofia National Opera, Austrian National opera hall and in Italy. He has contracts to sing at Tokyo opera hall in 2009 and in Australia at 2010, so i presume it is important to post his bio at the web so that if people are interested they can read it. By the way, for opera singers their bio is what it gets their next contract. - ntodorov, 23 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntodorov(nikolai todorov) (talk • contribs) 22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clairol (chemical)[edit]

Clairol (chemical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't believe this chemical compound exists; or, if it does, it has never appeared in the scientific literature. A search of multiple chemical databases (Chemical Abstracts, PubChem, etc.) using either the structure or the name "Clairol", turns up nothing. Even a similarity search turns up nothing even remotely similar to what is depicted in the chembox. It is unlikely that any peer-reviewed chemistry article has been published anywhere concering this compound if it does not appear in Chemical Abstracts. Furthermore, the reference in the article is completely unrelated - it has no connection to anything described. The reference is even dated years earlier than when "Clairol (chemical)" was supposedly first synthesized. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. Make sure Image:Clairol Line.png is deleted along with the article. --Leyo 20:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, very funny. Delete. Well done for spotting this, Ed. I informed the originator, even though the user seems to be inactive. Walkerma (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete likely hoax. --Polaron | Talk 22:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom FWIW, some creative googling reveals that an "oxazolophane" appears to be a macrocycle containing an oxazole ring, which doesn't strike me as pertinent to this article. shoy (reactions) 23:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice 'n Easy Delete Does she or doesn't she? Only her chemist knows for sure! What a dilemma. If you wrote a hoax article about "1,4-bis(4-hydroxypyridin-2-yl)-[1,3,4] oxadiazolidino[3,4-a][1,2,4,5]tetrazine-6,8-dione" or " C14H8N6O5" then there's no satisfaction because nobody would appreciate the joke. On the other hand, if you can get away with saying that there's a chemical called Clairol, it's quick to be exposed as a hoax. Let this one "dye". Mandsford (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "And then I said, 'That oxazole ring in my macrocycle wasn't there this morning!'" Mandsford (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Couldn't find anything on Google about a chemical named Clairol made by the University of Colorado. All references appear to refer to the shampoo. Artene50 (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The active compound of the shampoo is not the chemical which named "Clairol". Also, I agree what Mandsford said. It must be a joke. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 09:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the sole reference is unrelated to the compound shown, was published before the compound is claimed to have been discovered, and is from a different university than where the discovery is claimed to have taken place. NOTE - this is the only article that User:Bryn C created. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - either spam or an attack page; no verified sources about its notability. Bearian (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click2Mail[edit]

Click2Mail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Oh boy. Fails WP:NOTE at least, and is probably a WP:HOAX. Contained copyright violations of http://indiapost.nic.in with occurances of India replaced by Pakistan and India Post or Department of Post replaced by Al Tayyeb Group. Company website doesn't exist, only reference in a blog with exactly one entry. Contributer SaqibChaudhry (talk · contribs) might be a sockpuppet of creator Unitedequipment (talk · contribs) (see [23]). That one is too much for me, I'd appreciate some help cleaning this up. :) Amalthea (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: The user tried to give an explanation on my talk page. --Amalthea (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanispamcrufthoaxisement? :) Delete. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article about this company as non-notable and probable hoax. The infobox says the company is called ePost but the article is at Click2Mail. There is a US company by that name [24] that may or may not warrant an article. DCEdwards1966 20:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this edit, after I asked SaqibChaudhry about all the weirdness, he did change the company name to click2mail and switched the image (to a copyright infinging image from the internet), along with reintroducing the copyright violating text.
      Since I had a better idea about what was going on at that point and wanted to bring it to AfD in any case, I reverted his edit completely, along with the name change.
      Note by the way that the blog post in the references has yet another name for it: "i-post".
      --Amalthea (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the sources provided are not (quite) enough to establish notability. The opinions of the single purpose accounts were discounted.  Sandstein  16:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Edlington[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bernard Edlington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Edlington and messily again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Edlington2 which went to DRV which overturned on procedural grounds: the article is different from the 2007 and the AfD was not allowed to run properly. However: the article, the deletion review and the deleted version were all the work of the same editor, who has few other contributions to the project. The editor's name is Nexusb, and guess what the subject's company is called? Yes, you guessed it, Nexus. So it is not stretching the bounds of credulity at all to infer that Nexusb is someone from Nexus whose name starts with B. Maybe even Bernard, you never know. WP:COI, WP:SPA and possible WP:AUTO aside, the assertions of notability are not noticeably stronger than when previously deleted, and fall well short of compelling. Not CSD#A7 material, but several at DRV felt that it fell below WP:N by a tidy margin. I agree, and consensus is to relist, so here it is. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: deleted history at Special:Undelete/Image:Bernard_Edlington.jpg supports the hypothesis that Nexusb is or is closely associated with the subject. See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nexusb. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Not a bad article, but I can't see notability. Show me why and I'll be only too happy to change my mind. Good luck with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For all the reasons outlined by Guy. (For the record, I feel that it was a valid G4; but I can see the reasoning of those on the other side.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but you still think it's a valid G4? [26] -- Ned Scott 06:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete Guy makes a good case but some of the claims made in the article are the sort of thing that normally lead to separate reliable sources. However, the repeated attempts to recreate this article suggest that such sources do not exist. If further sourcing can be presented I'll likely change my mind. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There really weren't repeated attempts to recreate the article. An admin undeleted the article and moved it to userspace, the user worked on it for about a year and decided to try it in main space. That's all there was to it, and that's pretty normal for a user draft. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being an artist isn't notable, of itself. Being an innovative or celebrated artist is, as per WP:CREATIVE. I can see how this one might be with only the slightest nod in that direction, but I'm not seeing it from the article as it stands. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Visual arts tech doesn't always mean artist. He's also an entertainment tech, and a highly skilled one at that, who's had significant involvement in several notable productions. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and no reason given. Please check why this article being deleted for the last two times. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 09:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepIf all the sources are true then I do see notability. His work on the first live election broadcast using a virtual set alone at least is notable. The comment about sources, could be said of any article. First you dispute the sources then AfD. If you cannot find the sources yourself, you can ask the creator or the sources themselves for proof.Charicoo3 (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Charicoo3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepNeeds more information. There is no real info on the bigger stuff he did. One line for the long time AR exhibit he make at the national museum in Unzendake? Where is the info on the techniques used in last weekends film? Came to this page after I heard about it, but none of these articles are quoted, need more sources.10:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Chiewan (talk)

— Chiewan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. He may have an interesting and varied career, but I don't see notability. WWGB (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but expand. I'm not sure what the article looked like when this AFD was launched, but I'm seeing multiple sources cited (the fact not all are available online is irrelevant), plus involvement in major productions. I agree it should play this up a bit more, rather than it being more or less a CV of his work. 23skidoo (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A sufficient number of major productions and installations. DGG (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely non-notable. Working on some notable productions does not mean he is notable himself. Anyone who gets a job at a TV or film production company will get their name on lots of credits for productions. They all get credits. That does not mean the person themselves is notable, and we must draw that important distinction. Look at the hundreds of people on the credits of Batman. Do they all deserve a Wiki article? A film credit or IMDB entry is not notability. Look at the article itself. He hasn't done anything, and he actually has relatively few credits. The line that says he is "creating new procedural based rendering pipelines" sounds fabulous, but is just fluff. Fancy language that says he is checking that one brand of software works with another. Note there are no online references that mention his name beyond just a credit. Not one supplied. That means not notable.--Lester 21:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offense, but you don't seem to understand the difference between a coffee boy and a lead programmer of visual effects. -- Ned Scott 06:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually I thought published articles carry more weight than online ones, no? Some admins opinions regarding notability seem to have a very western bias WP:IDONTKNOWIT, even systemic bias maybe you should ask someone from Japan, or some proof if you dispute the sources. Yes a credit is just a credit, but with backed up articles that is a different thing.

Unfortunately the only thing I have against the article is I think English speakers in Japan are easier to cover on Wikipedia. It's hard to create a bio. Much harder if it's in another language, I am sure the creator took a long time to make the page so for that reason alone he/she may have more of a vested interest than a native English speaker, maybe even a good reason for restoration? Yama88 (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)— Yama88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone claiming that his work isn't notable because it was on Japanese TV they're unfamiliar with, but rather because it's unclear what notable contribution this particular person made, and why that was more notable than mere employment in TV. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry if I was unclear, I did not mention anything regarding Japanese TV. What I meant by systemic bias was most of the sources are from Japanese published articles and the quick assumption that foreign published articles are insignificant. Honestly I also think the document is fairly slim, however it has been backed up. I just think you should be fair regarding foreign publications. Also if you read the article properly the guy is not a TV employee at all, it says that is where his career started. His achievements since 1997 are in (I assume mostly) feature film. The achievements are clear too describing "nature, motion and design with his own software and algorithms" with reference to published material.Yama88 (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no real case for notability here - I fail to see why he's more notable than the hundreds of other visual effects people out there. For all we know, his work on the productions listed could have involved making coffee for the rest of the production crew. Would not appear to meet the WP:CREATIVE notability guideline.. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. This is short of the level of notability expected by WP:CREATIVE. For instance, it is expected that The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. Though the article has references, it is not clear if there are any independent third parties expressing their approval of his work. So we don't perceive that his work is widely cited or commented on. Japanese language sources could be summarized in English (on the article Talk page) if there is a chance we are missing something important. EdJohnston (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Guy & Lankiveil, and salt subject fails WP:CREATIVE and recreation fails to fix problem. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but that's an ignorant suggestion. The user was specifically allowed to work on a draft, and did so for about a year, and only then was it "recreated". Salting in this case would be completely and entirely inappropriate. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, reads like a non-notable autobiographical article. JBsupreme (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was the one who write the bio, so I feel I should not vote on the issue. I have asked Guy for an apology on his discussion page. I also feel this is getting bit nasty, so maybe I should go back to the other bios I started. I mean articles from magazines, newspapers, papers on this guy were more than 5 pages long. If that is not notable ... well. There are English article sources too. Go look them up, you only have to disprove one of my sources right? When I just started the page. It was rightfully deleted due to lack of substance, didn't have many articles dates about him etc. I only had info from 1 magazine. The page was put into my user-space so .... of course I was the only one who edited it. I also feel I had to, as it was my first entry into the wikiworld. I Spent ages getting information, I don't think I will go to that trouble again. People will probably call my new bio's auto's as well.Nexusb (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is request for an apology I left on Guy's page "I will not assume malice from your comments regarding the deletion of a bio I wrote on Bernard Edlington my I am sure you are a busy admin and whatnot. I am NOT him, close friend, or his employee. I DO work for a company called Nexus llc, which I think is named different from his. You CAN check my logs, ip whatever. If you think that is a coincidence well that word is immensely popular among us CG geeky crowd here, probably due to the Blade Runner cult status. Also You said it was the only bio I wrote, that too is wrong. I have a couple more, I am still writing, you can check my logs for those. I know I am slow, which was the reason for the first deletion. Learnt from my mistakes an now check my facts. Please do not assume too much, your assumptions may be wrong in some cases. I would love an apology, I really did not intend any malice by creating a bio" Nexusb (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still trying not to assume malice despite the attitude such as here and here. Nexusb (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, notability not established ukexpat (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability in a nutshell reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable". The sources quoted are from many, many independent reliable published secondary sources.Yama88 (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. It seems notability has been established here. Reliable sources have been found to verify this article's notability. (non-administrative closure) Thanks, RyRy (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zebulon Dread[edit]

Zebulon Dread (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable writer DimaG (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, he is not talking about the reliability. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 09:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete , sources provided during AfD are not enough to properly refute argument that book isn't notable. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to Hunt Ghosts[edit]

How to Hunt Ghosts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

After an extensive search, I can't find anything demonstrating why this book is notable. The author, while a seeming professional in the field the book is written for, doesn't seem particularly notable either. This article was proposed for deletion, and the prod was about to expire, until I noticed that a prod was previously removed from the article violating WP:PROD. -- Atamachat 19:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Atamachat 19:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Fails WP:BK; non-notable book by a non-notable author. Jезка (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are reliable sources for this book, gnews hits: [33] as well as a review by Library Journal:
    • Hommerding, Leroy. "Calling on Extraterrestrials/How To Hunt Ghosts (Book)." Library Journal 128, no. 9 (May 15, 2003): 105;Abstract:Reviews the books 'Calling on Extraterrestrials: Eleven Steps to Inviting Your Own UFO Encounters,' by Lisette Larkins and 'How to Hunt Ghosts: A Practical Guide,' by Joshua Warren.--Captain-tucker (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note,Library Journal review reference and a few citations have been added to the article.--Captain-tucker (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The best you can find is a review in The Daily Cardinal (a UW Madison independent student newsletter), passing mention in 2 books, and Library Journal, a trade publication for librarians. That's more than nothing but still shaky to me. -- Atamachat 16:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's also this in the NY Times. None of the sources thrill me, but they are something, leaving me pretty much on the fence.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just another case of a user promoting a non-notable book written by a non-notable author. It's not that the book doesn't exist, which the sources show, but whether it's notable. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 03:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Werewolves[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Young Werewolves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject has no more assertion of notability than the last time it was deleted. Lacks verifiable second party sources and still has the same issues with bad citations and use of self published and unverifiable sources. neon white talk 19:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It seems to meet criteria 1 in WP:MUSIC; Fangoria, Allmusic, Village Voice, etc. Not a strong keep but I hesitate to suggest it should be deleted. -- Atamachat 19:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. I see Fangoria, Allmusic, Village Voice, and other reliable sources among all the cruft. Criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC seems to be met. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 20:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only allmusic has slight verifiablity (which is continually debated), the article nowhere establishes any notability and i don't think you can base notability solely on an entry on allmusic. Fangoria doesnt have any serious reputation and the source is a blog entry that amounts to no more than a press statement about an album release and according to guidelines these cannot be used to establish notability. The Village Voice source was one of the ones that could not be substantiated, no mention of the band can be found on their site. The title given in the citation is 'Voice Choices' which is the name of the 'gig guide'/listing section in the Village Voice this suggests that the source being referred to is a listing advertisement and therefore not appropriate to be used as evidence of notability. --neon white talk 21:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Main "claims" to fame in WP:Reliable sources appear to be primarily of the same kind of one-liners and pass-throughs as in the 1st nomination, and appear to be better examples of the exceptions in WP:MUSIC criteria 1 rather than the positive qualification. Village Voice mention, for example, appears to be the same one, still mysteriously missing from their website as well. Fangoria mention is just a Fangoria.com blog entry repeating info from the band's MySpace page. Still no major label distribution and no evidence of non-self-published works other than singles appearing on compilations. --Closeapple (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The band has at least two full reviews in magazines considered notable enough for their own articles, besides the allmusic reference and numerous less meaty mentions in other media. What amount of citation would be acceptable for the nominator to withdraw, or at least stop re-nominating? Gimme danger (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think record reviews are considered promotional in nature and not a good source for notability. --neon white talk 13:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? They aren't promotional unless written by the band or associates. Having reviews written in major publications makes the information in the article verifiable, which is the purpose of the notability standard anyway. I don't see any information in this article which isn't verifiable. Gimme danger (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a1 no context, a7 nonnotable group, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The musical parody[edit]

The musical parody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I was unable to verify any of this article's contents on Google or the Internet Movie Database, which means the article is likely either a hoax or insufficiently verifiable and notable for our coverage. It could possibly be redirected to Parody music. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very cool! Happy editing to you as well! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ... because if it made the Citrus King become a "deletionist", then there truly is no hope for this article. Mandsford (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sadly this doesn't fall any of the speedy categories, because it's quite obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia (if not an outright hoax). Time for a snowball close? Terraxos (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced WP:BALLS. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No relevant google hits outside Wikipedia. Hoaxalicious. PC78 (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google is not a lynchpin to go by, but when a search of "The musical parody" with its supposed writer, "Daniel Solorzano" reveals only one hit: the Wikipedia article, it is highly likely that this is essentially wholly unverifiable material, either made up by the WP:SPA and/or in support of the previously put-forward Myspace. Either way, not notable. WilliamH (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Keep: This content would have to have several credible citations to merit serious consideration. Extremely dubious. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled F.C.[edit]

Note to admins, please do not close this until the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RE: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mido z05 is resolved BigHairRef | Talk 05:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable soccer club. Speedy declined "asserts notability", but I'm not sure why. No references but Facebook and the web-site of the league in which they play, for which see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maple Leaf Soccer Club. JohnCD (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am the main reference for this club there are no other reference to the club. i created it and i put it together. facebook reference i for a group i created on the club it self. The league reference i put in case it was needed i did believe i did any harm. Please clarify why its being deleted. If i have no other reference how am i suppose to get it. i am the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mido z05 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC) NB: user is now under indefinite block for being a sockpuppet of Hussizle.  RGTraynor  10:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Now unblocked. JohnCD (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment This is a legitimate team and has no false information whatsoever. It meets all article guidelines and should not be deleted. Any lack of legitimacy is simply due to the recreational nature of the league, which is not an excuse for deletion. What reference could possible be needed besides the website of the league itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hussizle (talk • contribs) 19:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC) — Hussizle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. BigHairRef | Talk 19:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be all true but that is not enough. In order to have an article in Wikipedia a subject must be of enough general interest for an encyclopedia article. The Wikipedia term for that is notable, and the standard required is explained at Notability and Notability (organizations and companies). Articles must also be verifiable from independent reliable sources. What that means is that, unless other people independent of your club have found it interesting enough to write about, it doesn't qualify for an article. Sorry, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to list every club and company and organisation in the world, JohnCD (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry sir but there is no way to explain your logic other than complete BULLSHIT. When i click on random article and see nonsense articles that are no longer than a single page, how is it that they can be allowed? They talk about things/people that have no interest to anyone.....such as.....Fredrick M. Lord, Craig Leipold, and Jon Ola Norbom...those are just 3 consecutive articles that came up when i clicked random article and proved my point. The beauty of wikipedia is that articles about everything are found. It is not right for you to delete this article, which is of a legitimate soccer club in a legitimate league. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hussizle (talk • contribs) 19:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No, it is of an amateur bunch of guys in the Monday night rec league, which fails the above listed criteria and would fail that of individuals at WP:ATHLETE, which holds that only "fully professional" athletes or amateurs at the "highest level of amateur play" are notable. By contrast, Craig Leipold is a multimillionaire who is the owner of a NHL franchise, Frederick W. Lord was a United States Congressman, and Jon Ola Norbom was a Norwegian cabinet minister. Contrary to popular notion, Wikipedia is not, in fact, for "articles about everything." I strongly recommend you and your friends review the links above, as well as WP:PILLAR, so you have a better idea as to our criteria for inclusion.  RGTraynor  20:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article clearly fails WP:V with its one source being facebook no mentions of the club on a google search except for the wiki entry. Fails the general notability guideline, and per RGTraynor. New users should read the aforementioned guidelines, as well as WP:CIVIL before further comments - Toon05 20:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-professional recreational league. This having an entry is one step below my cat having one. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I had already speedied this article but it seems to have been re-created. As another user has indicated they believe it asserts notability, I don't support re-speedying as a G4, but would rather see this process through. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No source to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd also speedied it due to lack of notability. CultureDrone (talk) 06:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Notability is lacking. – 'Latics (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly not notable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and speedy delete - First, not notable. Second, they used a wrong template which is for national football team. Surely that this football club is neither a professional nor amateur club. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 09:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn amateur team. --Jimbo[online] 12:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - non-notable. GiantSnowman 16:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 22:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christa Campbell[edit]

Christa Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Campbell is a bit part actress who has had many roles but all of them have been very minor and many of them have been in non-notable or barely notable films (eg. 2001 Maniacs). The article invites the reader to imagine that they are sizable roles for instance the True Hollywood Story episode, but in actuality True Hollywood story is not a dramatical production but rather a short documentary show which generally does not use SAG actors for its reenactments. Her "role " was to stand in for the young Ms Page in reenactments. This article seems to be one of many many vanispamcruftisement articles created about/for/by minor entertainment figures. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO - insufficient claim to notability. Eusebeus (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—but for a different reason: no sources. IMDB is not a reliable source and I can only turn up one mention of her in the press, and that's a parenthetical naming her as a character in one of her movies. (Something like "chased by a mutant zombie (John Doe).") Unless she has press mentions that I'm not finding it's delete. And what is with the recient spate of these? Livitup (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Leaf Soccer Club[edit]

Maple Leaf Soccer Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom; contested prod: nonnotable local recreational league. Maxim(talk) 18:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dileepji[edit]

Dileepji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable bio. No reliable sources to establish notablity. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Kevin (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joana Raposo[edit]

Joana Raposo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No independent reliable source proves her notability. All information I could find indicates that she is only a music school teacher, not a notable choir conductor. Per WP:MUSIC. Tosqueira (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was } No consensus. It's been on AfD long enough that I won't relist it. Kevin (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Atlantic Union of Vietnamese Student Associations[edit]

Mid-Atlantic Union of Vietnamese Student Associations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Check the article again and see if it has fulfilled the requirement of significant coverage as well as interleaving reliable independent sources of the subject. SkooBoi —Preceding comment was added at 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any independent coverage, that would include reputable media coverage, for example newspapers or magazines. Also, coverage in books or journals would be acceptable. If I've missed something, then could you be slightly more specific? PhilKnight (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have included links to a few pieces of media coverage including Video and an article written about the organization. Is the article now deemed sufficient in satisfying the requirements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkooBoi (talk • contribs) 01:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, please see the "Collective Philanthropy Project" section. The third paragraph specifically lists two news stations and two news websites that have covered MAUVSA. GlennYoung (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep Possibly bad-faith nom by now-blocked sock of JeanLatore. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 23:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Danker[edit]

Eli Danker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, a no body. Moop Fan 17 (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danker has a cult following in his native Israel and has had starring roles in Israeli films off and on for over thirty years. Analyst12 (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merged & redirected to Capital punishment in New Hampshire --Stormie (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Long[edit]

Howard Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable criminal that fails WP:BIO. No assertion of notability with only a single local news paper mention in article (and the mention of Long in that article is about the same length as this article, which pretty much just paraphrases the the news article). Google hits do not turn up any reliable sources showing extensive coverage of Long, nor does a Google book search. Failed CSD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep due to the nominator withdrawing the nomination. MuZemike (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Nukem Trilogy[edit]

Duke Nukem Trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is about a game to be released next year (see WP:CBALL). In addition, the content has been copied verbatim from the reference. MuZemike (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I WITHDRAW the nomination; I nominated the article in very poor judgment. MuZemike (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question? Is there anything on this page that is unverfied or speculation if not crystalballism does not apply. That guideline does not say anything about not having articles abotu unreleased products and articles about unreleased games are common. This is also from a notiable series has a verified existence and has been covered by IGN. At worst this should either be trimmed if there is too much speculation or merged with the series article. In short, deletion is unnecessary here. --76.66.189.245 (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sole article is an interview with the CEO of Apogee software, and the interview is entirely speculative in nature, not to mention bordering on a lack of NPOV. MuZemike (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is an interview with the CEO about the game they're making speculative? Nifboy (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Plagurism is a serious concern on Wikipedia. Plus the fact that a quote was copied into the article means that the article is left with a very poor structure. This is a difficult case. I would say merge into a series article until further information becomes avalible, but an article covering the Duke Nukem series does not seem to exist. This article also meets the criteria for speedy deletion (G12). I will withdraw my position if the article is rewritten and the offending material is removed immediately. --.:Alex:. 19:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Offending section removed. Focus on the article's potential for an article, not its current state. Is the subject notable? Can it be a good article? I don't know if it's too early in the game to call this one. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply to confirmed games. The publisher's press release can be found here. Nifboy (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I couldn't find it. MuZemike (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, press releases do not meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG), as the said release is not independent of the subject. The release involves two companies with a vested interest in the game (i.e. can be considered self-publicity). Hence, it is not independent. MuZemike (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hence the interview and a few other sources , and I don't doubt more sources will come in as details are released (I mean, the game was just announced a week ago), even if it takes a few years. As an example, the article on Dragon Age was created back when it was announced in September 2004, and only recently have more details about it surfaced. Deleting this or that page now is counterproductive. Nifboy (talk) 08:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To me, that's actually a fairly convincing argument that the article should have been deleted and salted until last week. For the first 3-4 years that the article existed on WP, it served no purpose other than as a free advertisement. Just because it isn't counterproductive doesn't mean that it is productive. Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As I said before, I would suggest merging this into a series article until much more information becomes avaliable, then the old article can be recreated. But as a series article does not exist in this instance and that the copyrighted material has been removed I think retaining this article is the best viable option. --.:Alex:. 10:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Be sure to do a google search before supporting an AfD nomination guys and gals. This was big news at E3, and has been covered pretty much everywhere. IGn, Kotaku, Joystiq, Gamasutra 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. And then some more with Nintendo World 6, Tom's games 7, Shack news 8, Digital Trends 9, CVG 10, and even the Sydney Morning Hearld got in on the action 11. Did anyone do a google search? Did anyone read any E3 press releases? MuZemike Remember being a good wikipedia editor is not about deleting content, its about improving it. Icemotoboy (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to bring up that Duke Nukem Forever is a pretty good example of why first-party claims are not reliable. Just because a known developer or publisher claims to be making a game doesn't necessarily mean that the game is notable right off the bat. Strictly speaking, a subject needs to be notable before the article is created, but the community tends to be lenient for recognizable names. Parroting of press releases does not constitute significant coverage, but I haven't read every single article about it so I can't say if that's the only kind of article being written about this game. I did read the Joystiq article, which was actually a bit sarcastic in its treatment. Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This game has been confirmed by good old Apogee. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted (A7, G11). --MCB (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha zine[edit]

Ganesha zine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable fanzine. Rob Banzai (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A fanzine which printed 250 copies of four irregularly published issues, offered for sale in one shop. Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. This could also possibly be merged to "variations of", but the article is such a big fat mess that I wouldn't even know where to begin. The "delete" proponents basically all say IDONTKNOWIT, or "unsourced". Has anyone even looked for sources? I see no evidence. <INSERT Apologies, Zagalejo looked for sources END INSERT> I will add a cleanup tag to the article, and work on it myself a bit. Anyone else is welcome to help find sources. I will renominate this myself if I can't find any of the sources that "surely can be found". Keeper ǀ 76 19:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21 (basketball)[edit]

21 (basketball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is NOT for games made up one day on the Basketball court. non-notable, unreferenced, uncategorized, fails WP:V, and there is original research. Tavix (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless an editor can find any reliable sources in order to satisfy WP:V and WP:N, both of which this article currently fails to satisfy.Wiw8 (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Fails WP:V, WP:N and probably fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well. Reyk YO! 22:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 21 is not something that was "just made up". It's one of the most common forms of pickup basketball [34]. That said, 21 is already mentioned here. Zagalejo^^^ 22:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect there then. Reyk YO! 22:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Variations of basketball. I was going to say "weak keep", since it's one of the more well known playground games, but I don't think anyone is going to add sources. The article was created back in '05, when sourcing was optional and original research was punished with a mean set of curly-brackets. Since then, the edits seem to have been more OR, based on, "the way we played it, we had this rule that..." I can see where the nominator would conclude that this is yet another "game made up in a day", because the article operates on the assumption that the reader has already heard of this, which is the wrong approach to an encyclopedia. Mandsford (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that is where I was going with it, thanks for elaborating. Tavix (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is the article about? Raymond "Giggs" Ko 09:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We'd tell you, but since you've already made up your mind to "delete", why bother? There may be another person who says "keep" without looking at the article, so it all evens out. Mandsford (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you a deletionist? When deciding whether to keep or delete it, you should have an understanding about what the article is about or not participate at all.
  • It could be a profound Dadaist commentary on the state of the article. Protonk (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - it is a reasonably well known variation basketball for two people. -- Whpq (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep. At least in the U.S., it's an extremely common term for an informal basketball game. WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not WP:MADEUP. Squidfryerchef (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definitely a well-known game, sources surely exist. Everyking (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of third-party sources establishing verifiability and notability. Biruitorul Talk 04:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to the respective albums, leaving the actual merge to interested and knowledgeable editors.Tikiwont (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S.O.S. (Good Charlotte song)[edit]

S.O.S. (Good Charlotte song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable Good Charlotte song. Since it isn't a single, it fails WP:MUSIC. I am also nominating the following Good Charlotte songs for the same reasons:

Victims of Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All Black (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Broken Hearts Parade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Riot Girl (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tavix (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Victims of Love" and "Broken Hearts Parade" articles should remain because Victims of Love was going to be released, though it describes what happened instead. Broken Hearts Parade should stay because it talks about the naming of the album, which is notable information. Anthonyd3ca (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The naming of the album should be in the section about the album, not off in a different article. About Victims of Love, it isn't a single or chart topping hit and thus isn't notable per WP:MUSIC. Tavix (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to the respective albums, leaving the actual merging and disambiguation to interested and knowledgeable editors. Tikiwont (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Piece of Heaven[edit]

A Little Piece of Heaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A not notable Avenged Sevenfold song. Since it isn't a single, it fails WP:MUSIC. A am also nominating the following Avenged Sevenfold songs for the same reason:

Crossroads (b-side) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Flash Of The Blade (Avenged Sevenfold song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I Won't See You Tonight (Avenged Sevenfold song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Betrayed (Avenged Sevenfold song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tavix (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all to the albums they were on. Songs by popular artists that didn't chart are almost never notable, and I see nothing else that makes these any more notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 19:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads is a downloadable single, therefore is an important article. It does not need to be deleted.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 22:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Haner Sr.[edit]

Brian Haner Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't think being a stand-in guitarist for a band quite makes this guy notable. Tavix (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete . lifebaka (talk - contribs) 22:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dialexia[edit]

Dialexia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Near blatant advertising. Exists only to promote the company. No references other than ones that point to the company website Ernestvoice (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references and made the overall tone less promotional. In general, nominators should indicate what efforts they have made to find references if they comment that references are sparse or absent. --Eastmain (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, strongly. This is a non-consumer tech business and the references given appear to all be trade publications. The article is still strongly inappropriate in tone: Their suite of integrated IP Telephony solutions provides a link for small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs), carriers, and ISPs to allow them to benefit from the increased demand for next-gen telecommunication services. Where do I go for last-gen telecommunication services? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. There is nothing wrong with these trade publications. They are all reliable sources. Presumably "last-gen telecommunications services" would be circuit-switched services rather than packet-switched ones. --Eastmain (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Trade publications may or may not be reliable sources; but they don't establish notability among the general public. If they mentioned the specific technologies they provided, the article would be better written: but the point is that next-gen is vague and glittery advertising gibberish: nobody promotes their product as last-gen. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in-house PR, trade papers, and the like, are not independent sources. Bearian (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tan ǀ 39 01:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art of Dying (band)[edit]

Art of Dying (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band with one self-released album. Article started life with the hijacking of a redirect page and has remained without references for over a year. Recent conflict of interest editing. Many ghits for "art of dying" but mainly in other contexts. See also Art of Dying (album). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Passes WP:BAND criterion 6. Band has 2 members from Canadian rock outfit Thornley, who charted a a pair of number 1s in Canada. COI issues are quite apparent in the article, however, and will have to be dealt with otherwise. Article needs cleanup and major POV work. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article actually says "Outside of the core members of Jonny and Greg, Art Of Dying has always had a cast of revolving players, including...", so they're not regular members. And given recent hijinx with an IP editor refactoring and removing talk page comments, I'd like to see those claims verified. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Source found for Tavis here, which satisfies criterion 6. However, I also found copyvio here. Hacking off offending sections. If there's more than the bio and reviews, I'll speedy. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IF COPYVIO and COI issues are resolved. -MrFizyx (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Furtado's forthcoming album[edit]

Nelly Furtado's forthcoming album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another article of rumours about a forthcoming album. No reliable source - only a Youtube clip. The text is full of "supposedly" and "is rumored", and actually quotes the artist as saying she "doesn't no what she's going to do for my fourth album". WP:MUSIC#Albums saw this one coming: "...a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be discussed only in the artist's article." And even then it would need a reliable source - Wikipedia is not for rumours. Contested PROD. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:HAMMER. If the title of an album is not known (or if all that is known is based on rumors), then it doesn't belong here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 16:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rumor-based article lacks reliable sources to verify claims, and engages in crystal-ball gazing."Said to be...rumored to be" articles do not belong in an encyclopedia. Create the article when and if the album comes out or has reliable sources about how it is going to be issued. Edison (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Lots of POV words like 'supposed' or 'however' here. The album title is not known either. Artene50 (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HAMMER & WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 04:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per the excellent WP:HAMMER, nom and comments. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the reasons the article is up for speedy delete is due the reference being a youtube video, but the video shows a press conference with the artist herself saying she doesn't yet know and she may do a spanish album, so obviously the article is going to be full of words such as 'rumoured' and 'said to be' and even though it is not clear what she will do it does confirm she is planning a forthcoming album. So i don't think the whole article should be deleted. Mus001 (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Patience is a virtue. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing is known. Is it an English album, or Spanish, or... 76.124.165.253 (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rumours and speculation and conjecture. We can create the article once the artist's decided what to put on the album. Or even whether to make one at all. tomasz. 13:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, delete, delete. No sources or info, all speculation, WP:CRYSTAL. - eo (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Nine Square[edit]

Dirty Nine Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not for things made up at camp. While this game may have a history at a particular camp, the article does not demonstrate that it is a widespread, well-known variant of four square. Further, it provides no independent sources. Accordingly, it fails the notability and verifiability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. ——RyanLupin • (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MASH (game)[edit]

MASH (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to be so well-known as to deserve an article. Certainly, there is very little evidence that the game described is known under this name... unless of course you are the owner of the domain name www.mashgame.com/  ! Pichpich (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. I think the game is notable enough that a well-referenced article should be allowed to stand. That said, I'm not sure where independent coverage of the game can be found. (If sources are found during the debate, please leave a message on my talk page so I can re-evaluate my !vote.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks like the sources are out there, so the articles needs fixed, not trashed. —C.Fred (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This has to be one of the most popular childhood games there is, sort of like she loves me she loves me not while pick petals off a flower. That being said I am sure references will be hard to find. I don't know a single person who hasn't played this as a kid. -Djsasso (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We played this game as a kid in the 80s, and I knew it under this name. Yeah, yeah, IKNOWIT, but I'll look for sources - my gut says this is saveable. Townlake (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I never heard of the game but:
There appear to be a fair number of these. Hobit (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely heard of it from many independent sources. Definitely worth having an article for it. Valley2city 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  17:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of bong patents[edit]

List of bong patents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A list of extlinks to patents. Nonencyclopedic. WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not web directory and not a collection of indiscriminate information. There are millions of patents in the world of varying notability and triviality. Notable, i.e., well-known and discussed patents must be desribed in the corresponding articles. Laudak (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Almost an A3 for containing little else than a restatement of the title and external links. Should be deleted anyway because Wikipedia isn't a link farm. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 15:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A link farm. Wikipedia is not your personal webspace. This seems to have previously been in the bong article. Some of these could be used as references in that article, but as a standalone article it clearly fails WP:NOT. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 15:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Interesting, but there isn't a great deal of information about what these particular steps along the march of progress actually achieved. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The USPTO web site and search engine already exists and would be used for research on bong patents, not wikipedia. Useful info as part of relevant articles, not standalone. -- Quartermaster (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete worthless list. Bigdaddy1981 (talk)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A3 per TenPoundHammer and so tagged. Vquex (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete but not speedy--a list of patens is more like a bibliography than a list of external links, even though the patents are linked, just as the books might be. But this is definitely not encyclopedic content. DGG (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this was how to get loaded in the patent offices - for anyone recreating their own tiny smoke house a valuable resource. Free the bong patents and anyone will be making pipes to load down. King of the Fondue (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bandwidth.com[edit]

Bandwidth.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No cited notability. page only exists to promote the company Ernestvoice (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as non-notable. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless reliable sources are cited which allow this article to satisfy WP:N and WP:V, which it currently fails to satisfy as there are no reliable sources cited either to verify the facts or support notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiw8 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Keep per the reliable sources now added. Wiw8 (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per addition of somewhat-reliable, third-party sources. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Both of those sources are the very definition of trivial coverage. One is a passing mention in a paragraph-long report that also mentions other sites, and one is basically a press release. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as new sources seem to be reliable and significant enough. Article still needs a lot of work, but is no longer spammy. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kartano is free to use the same sources and info to create articles on individual weapons. If the content of this article is needed just ask me or any other administrator. Chick Bowen 01:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian International Arms[edit]

Australian International Arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company. Article is basically just advertising. No independent, third-party sources have been cited. NSH001 (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator --NSH001 (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not only are no sources given, it seems that little to nothing is known by gunenthusiasts re the firm (see http://www.303british.com/id41.html for an example). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, only just. I think the company is known around gun shooting circles. A few gun magazines and a book mentions AIA.--Lester 04:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies. As the page creator, I am a gun enthusiast but I am not involved with AIA in any way. As a range safety officer however, I do see many firearms and have had a chance to examine these rifles closely. When I am able to obtain one, I can provide technical detail showing the differences between these "un-Enfield" rifles and their original Service counterparts. I have added some further external sources as well. More will follow as I do research. In shooting circles, the AIA made rifles are well known by word of mouth and are a topic of discussion at several Miltiary Rifle meets. Kartano (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment If the article is to stay, it needs to cite multiple, independent third-party reliable sources. See WP:V "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." For what constitutes a reliable source, see WP:RS. --NSH001 (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I've been able to obtain issues and references to publications. I will endeavor to obtain these and use further information from those in the article with appropriate referencing. Kartano (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the weapon may be notable and worthy of coverage in Wikipedia, the company AIA appears to be unremarkable and therefore lacking adequate notability to meet the primary criterion specified in WP:COMPANY. WP is not a trade directory. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Could this be re-written with a focus on the firearms themselves rather than the company? Kartano (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion some of the content might be profitably merged to the main article about the Number 4 Lee-Enfield rifle perhaps Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I like that idea. As the rifles are based on that action (in point of fact designed specifically to look like abd are designed AROUND the No. 4 rifles) this would make sense too. Any takes on this idea? Kartano (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Suggestion I should go ahead and do it -- be bold.
      • Delete, not a notable company, but could do with an article on the weapons instead.
  • Suggestion The consensus seems to be to delete this page and to produce articles that focus on the rifles. I'm not sure that this can be merged with the article on the No. 4 rifle (as these are based on the same ACTION but are not the same RIFLE) but I could certainly work on articles based on the actual firearms themselves. RFC? Kartano (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Christian Institute, where the case is adequately covered and sourced. --MCB (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lilian Ladele tribunal[edit]

The Lilian Ladele tribunal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

1) There is no such specific artifact as The Lilian (sic) Ladele tribunal: it was a standard, unnamed employment tribunal, consequently, invented and useless search term.

2) Breaches WP:NOT#NEWS. Article is just a stub cobbled together from newspaper snippets.

3) POV in that it gives details only from Ladele's side of case.

4) Really sloppy research - she's Lillian not Lilian: originating author advised, but...

5) This case already covered more accurately and with balance in the Christian Institute article, the appropriate place IMHO.

In summary, pointless search term, POV, bangs up against WP:NOT#NEWS and regurgitates information better written and placed elsewhere. BFG1701 (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC) — BFG1701 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Response from creating author:
1) I can't see anything obvious in WP:NOTNEWS which this article appears to be in breach of. Can the nominator explain his/her reasoning?
Yes, he can. Without wanting this to sound sarcastic, it's on Sentence 1 on the WP:NOTNEWS page! - "Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact." (My emphasis) "Tribunal finds for woman" hardly qualifies! BFG1701 (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you've just said sounds to me like a very good argument against deletion. If this decision isn't overturned, then clearly it is going to be "verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact". If it is overturned, then I agree, it becomes a "footnote", in which case the Christian Institute article is probably the only place it needs mentioning. SP-KP (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"If this decision isn't overturned, then clearly it is going to be..." etc. Complete speculation on your part: nowhere in the article is this event's alleged major impact asserted. Overturned or not, it's just a tribunal finding! Not even precedent setting under UK law. But as we seem to have radically differing views on what constitutes a major news event, I suggest we leave it up to our fellow editors to decide. BFG1701 (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do seem to have very differing views, but I think we're getting quite closer to working out why that is, so I'd like to continue this discussion for a little while if that's OK (but yes, let's have views from others too). My understanding, based on the reporting I've read, of what this tribunal has established is that is twofold (a) a specific point that registrars have a "conscience opt-out" for civil partnership ceremonies, and (ii) a more general principle that, in some circumstances, employers should take account of their employees' individual views (however out-of-date or irrational they may be) in determining what work they can be asked to do, and cannot dismiss them for refusing to do certain types of work for "conscience reasons". I agree that the latter would require many more tribunal cases of a wider variety in order for this principle to become firmly established, but the former (assuming this finding is not overturned) is pretty clear-cut. Have I understood the legal situation incorrectly? SP-KP (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion needs to be limited to the deletion or otherwise of this article, therefore I restrict myself to the article's worthiness of inclusion here. Regardless of the CI's claims, tribunal findings of this nature do not create new points of law nor establish far-reaching precedents: no opt-outs have been established, no over-arching religious trump card has been created, both relevant Acts remain in full force regardless of anyone's religious leanings. This case may be interesting to those of us who make our living from litigation (and for those who are simply socially aware, I suppose) but aside from affecting the two parties involved (and having now read the full transcript, I think it unlikely the decision will stand - but that is speculation on my part, educated or otherwise! <grin>) it remains light-years away from having the significance you suggest. BFG1701 (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2) Nowhere, to my knowledge is there anything stating that article names need to be "search terms", and anyway this is not in itself a reason for deletion, but a reason for renaming to a better name.
3) Not a reason for deletion; a reason for improving the article.
4) Some sources give Lilian as the name. Whatever, mis-spellings are not a reason for deletion.
5) In contrast to the above this is a good, sensible, point. Yes, merge & redirect might well be a good solution.
SP-KP (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect Lillian Ladele (correctly spelled!) to the Christian Institute article 86.144.76.209 (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Christian Institute Laudak (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (with regret) Merge/Redirect . This is potentially an important case on freedom of conscience for Christians, who disapprove of contemporary attitudes to sexuality. As such, the subject deserves to be mentioned in WP, but I would have preferred this to be The Lillian Ladele case or a biographic article on Lillian Ladele. Since this is a case of a person "famous for 15 minutes", or in her case for perhpas a few months and has been NN for the rest of her life, a BIO article would probably not be justified. The present title is inaccurate and should be deleted and salted, but a redirect from either or both of my suggested titles would be appropriate. Depedning on how the case progresses, sucha redirect can be converted to an article if desirable in the light of future events. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and merge with Blue_Ridge_Mall (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Ridge Crossing[edit]

Blue Ridge Crossing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article for a non-notable strip mall that replaced a fairly nondescript dead mall (that has it's own article). This article is basically a list of tenants with a wrong infobox and must be deleted. TheListUpdater (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Jansson[edit]

Oscar Jansson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Young footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. Was prodded, but removed by article's creator with the rationale "its fine"... пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. BJTalk 02:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Augustine's RC Primary[edit]

AfDs for this article:
St Augustine's RC Primary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A primary school that doesn't stand out from others. StaticGull  Talk  13:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doozy Bots[edit]

Doozy Bots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Prod reason: No evidence of notability. One promo video does not grant notability. There is no evidence of coverage in any reliable source. I'll also add that the article engages in a high degree of original research and does not maintain a neutral point of view. The only thing that can be verified is what is in the trailer. --Farix (Talk) 12:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 12:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (yes, I know WP:PERNOM is an argument to avoid, but Farix basically summed it all up), and maybe add a passing mention as appropriate to one of the Gundam articles. —Dinoguy1000 17:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It clearly doesn't pass muster in its current form, and since the article is about a trailer for a non-notable canceled TV show, it's nearly impossible to improve or expand. The only reason given for the removal of the prod was that the editor hated to see "interesting little stubs like this" get deleted, but when even the editor who de-prodded the article acknowledged that it wouldn't survive an AfD, do we really need to take the time to do one? Gelmax (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my prod. To quote myself: No evidence of notability. One promo video does not grant notability. There is no evidence of coverage in any reliable source. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dollar_Store_Wrestling[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dollar_Store_Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Despite initial WP:AGF and attempts to improve the article the subject fails WP:N and WP:V Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the extensive list of references are all from their own site or myspace page. A search for coverage on them through Google News finds nothing, and a web search doesn't turn up anything resembling a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Looks like this meets the criteria for a NN company. Please also note author continues to remove AFD tag from article. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no way to verify its notability as a company or gorup from good sources. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nominator is strongly encouraged to research the topic before nominating articles for deletion in future. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 03:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manzoor Ali Khan[edit]

Manzoor Ali Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC/WP:BIO clearly. ScarianCall me Pat! 12:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Clearly notable. He is specified as being a long-time singer with the national radio service, which for the period (b.1924) probably equates to significant notability, and there are 2 references, one a 3 p. entry in an national biographical directory-a selective one [39], listing only 700 people. More accessibly, [40] lists him as one of their 7 most significant artists, describing him as "[t]he legendry Muhtram Ustaad Manzoor Ali Khan needs no intorduction.He inspired a whole generation of Sindhi artists." [41] (spelling as in the original). The death date is apparently a typo, and needs correction. Given the period and place, this is adequate evidence. DGG (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG, clearly. AfD hero (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect. BJTalk 02:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boingo (Hoodwinked)[edit]

Boingo (Hoodwinked) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article clearly violates WP:Notability; is not covered by any secondary sources. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to List of Hoodwinked characters as suggested above. Character is all ready mentioned there, not sure if the additional sentence or two in the article would add any value if ported over. Still, that's an editing decision. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge (sourced content only) to Eddie Van Halen and convert to disambig page. I've done this but feel free to expand. Chick Bowen 02:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brown sound[edit]

Brown sound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article does not meet the notability requirements for wikipedia. Delete unless muliple third party sources can prove that the term is in fact in use beyond the one magazine article quoting Van Halen. Portions of the article could be merged into Eddie Van Halen.Nrswanson (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Dr. Patrick Treacy. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There doesn't appear to be much will to merge this large amount of content, or any current article into which it can be merged. If that changes any administrator can retrieve the deleted content. Chick Bowen 02:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Jones B-sides and non-album tracks[edit]

Grace Jones B-sides and non-album tracks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable B-sides and non-album tracks. All information is forked from respective singles and albums. Fancruft. Please see the AfDs for Garbage B-sides and List of Coldplay's b-sides. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tan ǀ 39 23:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE NITC[edit]

IEEE NITC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable chapter ninety:one 21:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 02:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable organization. No significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Joel North. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn, no other !votes to delete. - Icewedge (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MathPath[edit]

AfDs for this article:
MathPath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A marginally notable Math camp, I found this but that is about all. - Icewedge (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In favor of retaining MathPath page[edit]

1. This is the only U.S. summer camp for the very very mathematically talented and interested in the 11-14, middle school age range. There are a handful of such programs for high-school age students, including both the Hampshire College Summer Mathematics Program and MathCamp (the older sibling to this program). Both those high-school programs seem to have stable Wikipedia pages, and in many ways such a program for middle schoolers is more notable. 2. MathPath's summer staff routinely includes multiple notable mathematicians, and in particular, the very famous John Conway (Conway Games, Surreal numbers, etc.) 3. Broadly, MathCamp is of roughly equal importance to quite a few entries in the Wikipedia Category: Mathematics education list.

My background: I have never published anything on Wikipedia before; I'm sure I am not using the correct templates for a deletion argument. I am a reasonably well published but not particularly notable discrete mathematician and computer scientist; Robert (Bob) H. Sloan. I have had a child attend this camp, presumably giving me both more knowledge and more bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.193.40.122 (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There appears to have been coverage in the Wall Street Journal. The 2006 camp was held at UC Santa Cruz, and the UCSC in the News page for August 28, 2006 says: "The gifted middleschoolers at UCSC's MathPath were featured in the Wall Streeet Journal's weekend edition." But I can't confirm this at the Wall Street Journal itself, perhaps because it may only have relatively recent articles online. --Eastmain (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although Mathpath may be a small camp, it is one of the few math summer camps available for middle school students. In order for Wikipedia to be a fair encyclopedia, it should have some information about this camp. Hm29168 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The wall street journal article is refrenced now. This article explains why MathPath is important. Whitesoxman (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to game article.

Sadikahu[edit]

Sadikahu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable enemy from a single game. DurinsBane87 (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs: This article can very easily be tucked back into its parent with no loss of information. Nifboy (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its an article on a fictional game. Maybe it can be placed as trivia on US Navy Seals but it doesn't merit its own article. There is lots of trivia in articles however. Artene50 (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should be part of the parent article considering its size. Kagetto (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as usual in such cases. Didn't need to come here. It's good to have the redirect. someone coming to Wikipedia for information about this or any character is a notable published fiction should at least be able to find out what the context is, and the redirect will do that. DGG (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete without prejudice to recreation when more information becomes available. PhilKnight (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart little 4[edit]

Stuart little 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article only consists of unsourced rumours. StaticGull  Talk  15:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree, it was from an article on wikipedia that i came across the information regarding the fourth film, and so as more information becomes available, it will be added Mrmccollough (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You got this information off another Wikipedia article? Which one? GlassCobra 15:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • yes i did... Stuart Little (film) under sequels...Mrmccollough (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I went and removed it. With no sourcing and all incarnations of a SL4 article having been deleted, it should not have been mentioned. GlassCobra 16:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete , though it appears the content would be fine with some reliable sources attached. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 23:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased material by Cher[edit]

Unreleased material by Cher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A collection of highly non-notable songs. Fancruft. Article fails WP:N and WP:RS. No media coverage of songs as they are unreleased. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but I do not understand why you should cancel my page
  • Comment -- As a group, I would say the songs are notable; however, this would only be true if there were a reliable source attached. As it is now, it's as good as rumour and speculation. If sources can be found, I'd say it's notable enough for inclusion as part of the large body of work of an extremely notable artist. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reliable sources at all. As an aside, the list contradicts itself. It mentions songs that are "Official unreleased released on the re-released album...", which (I think) means they actually are released.  Channel ®   01:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unreleased songs, like unpublished books, are not inherently notable, and usually unverifiable.--Boffob (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi guys, sorry but I'm not english, I'm italian and I try to write this page because I love Cher, but I don't know how many error I do so someone help me to find all the strange thing and I try to correct all. OK??????
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, WP:SNOW close. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duality (mathematics)[edit]

Duality (mathematics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This entire article is completely vacuous and artificial.

The definition (if it can even be called one) given states that:

Generally speaking, dualities translate concepts, theorems or mathematical structures into other concepts, theorems or structures, in a one-to-one fashion.

This could describe any of a number of different mathematical operations. An attempt is made to be more specific by characterizing dualities as involutions, but some of the items listed below are not involutions (the dual of a linear space for example). It seems like the only thing that the examples have in common is that they contain the word "dual".

I have never seen the word "dual" or the concept of duality itself defined or discussed in mathematical literature. This article certainly doesn't cite any instances of such discussions. In fact, the word is actually used in many different ways in mathematics. Thus to try to define duality as a single mathematical concept is misleading and incorrect.

I would like to suggest deleting this article or changing the title to "Mathematical terms containing the word dual". 68.89.168.74 (talk · contribs) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 11:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Making sense of sometimes vague notions of "duality" has been an important impetus to research, going back to the discovery of projective geometry at least; often category theory can it precise meaning nowadays, but it takes time and understanding to convert vague ideas into precise mathematics- this dates back to the original Eilenberg Maclane paper on the General Theory of Natural Equivalences and the vector space example among others. An example of a somewhat loose duality correspondence similar to this article's usage, is Eckman-Hilton duality cf the book in the Peter Hilton article. There's plenty of other ways to extend it too, Grothendieck dualities in all sorts of sheaf cohomologies, a concept of duality in analytic number theory, etc. The point is that the ways the word is used are generally not so different. They bear some kind of "family resemblance."-and the article points out an instance where the word is used in a totally unrelated way - "dual numbers." Although there may not be perfect overarching concepts, there generally is some way to relate one usage to another on this list.John Z (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable concept (or meta-conept) in mathematics. This article is more accessible than dual (category theory) and dual object. It just needs some references. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Projective duality, planar graph duality, linear algebra polarity, linear programming duality, etc., are all very important concepts within their fields (enough for separate Wikipedia articles) but also related in important ways to each other: e.g., polarity is one way of forming the projective dual, and if a planar graph is represented as the skeleton of a polyhedron, its planar dual will be the skeleton of the polyhedron's polar dual; the linear algebra duality between vectors and linear functions restricts to a projective duality between projective points (represented by equivalence classes of vectors) and hyperplanes (represented by zero-sets of linear functions), etc. The article could stand to be fleshed out to describe these connections more carefully rather than (as it is now) almost being a {{mathdab}} page, but that isn't an argument for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The article needs a lot of work, but it's an inherently encyclopedic topic. Reyk YO! 22:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has no sources and appears to be improper synthesis or original thought. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you make any attempt to look for sources? There are numerous books directly on the topic of duality. The nominator appears to be worried about one sentence in the lede, rather than about the topic of duality. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Arithmetic Duality Theorems by J. S. Milne (Academic Press) [43]
      • Duality Principles in Nonconvex Systems by David Yang Gao (Springer) [44]
      • Duality in Analytic Number Theory by Peter Elliot (Cambridge Univ. Press) [45]
      • Duality in Measure Theory by C. Constantinescu (Springer) [46]
      • Introduction to Grothendieck Duality Theory by Allen Altman and Steven Kleiman (Springer) [47]
      • Theory of Duality in Mathematical Programming by Manfred Walk (Springer) [48]
      • Duality in Optimization and Variational Inequalities by C.j. Goh (Taylor & Francis) [49]
      • Natural Dualities for the Working Algebraist by David M. Clark and Brian A. Davey (Cambridge Univ. Press) [50]
  • Such a list does little but demonstrate that the word is used in various ways. But what is the relationship of these sources to what is said in this article or similar articles like Coherent duality, Duality (projective geometry), Duality (order theory)? None of these articles have any sources or citations while their language is quite opaque and unsuitable for a general encyclopedia. In their current state, these articles utterly fail our core policy of verifiability. Even articles about Skateboarding dogs are better than this. Why are the maths articles all so bad? Colonel Warden (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for clarifying what led to your "delete" comment. I'm sure the closer will find it useful. --C S (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Colonel Warden"'s complaint that duality (projective geometry) is opaquely written caused me to look at that article. I would say it's written for a more advanced level of reader than necessary: one could introduce the concept in such a way that most undergraduates would understand what is being said, with a variety of examples, and then later in the article look at it from a more advanced point of view. That would improve the article. That said, I don't think it's opaquely written; it's actually written in such a way that any mathematician would understand it. Certainly references could be added; there are dozens of books that present the material. As for the question "Why are the maths articles all so bad?", that can only cause one to take "Colonel Warden" less seriously. They vary in quality but are generally good. The "original research" complaint is silly since the concept is standard and the examples are the usual ones. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mathematics articles on Wikipedia are not generally good - there are only sixteen which pass muster. One likely consequence is that, as selective editions like Wikipedia 1.0 are published, explicitly selecting good material for inclusion, mathematics will be largely excluded owing to the poor quality of its articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is nonsense. There are lots and lots of good math articles. That only sixteen have been officially labeled "Good Articles" means nothing. How many have even been considered? And if they're not officially Good Articles, that doesn't mean they're not good articles. Here's a fact: a mathematician with decades of experience but little familiarity with the workings of Wikipedia recently recommended Wikipedia to my attention as a source of information on mathematics; he was apparently unaware that I'd done quite a lot of work on it. And other formidable professional mathematicians without much familiarity with the Wikipedia community or it practices have repeatedly said similar things to me. And Colonel Warden, I haven't seen you around Wikipedia's math article or their talk pages much, if at all, so it's not clear that you know much about this. I, on the other hand, do. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS Could I ask you to be specific about your complaints about Wikipedia's math articles? Maybe some specific examples of what you find not good? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If either of you pursue this line of discussion, I think another location would be more appropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an invitation to "step outside"? My money's on Michael Hardy. --C S (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is basically a disambiguation article, and an important one. The nominator seems to have trouble reading and also understanding deletion process. The article does not in fact define a notion of duality as s/he described. In fact, it starts out by saying "duality has numerous meanings". The second sentence is merely an attempt to give an overview statement of the notions of duality as they appear in mathematics. Calling the article completely "vacuous and artificial" reflects a lack of understanding. If the nominator wants to rewrite the beginning of it, there's no need to nominate this for deletion. --C S (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per John Z, C S, and Gandalf. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I really don't see my vote is needed, but still. -- Taku (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think the arguments for deletion are accurate. Chillum 14:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a general rule anyone wishing to delete an article could first discuss the matter with the main contributors to the article, at the article talk page. This may spare us some unnecessary votes. Katzmik (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The points made by the nomination were posted to the article talk page in March and no-one responded. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article in its present form is mainly a list of examples, and they're pretty standard examples. The idea is a standard one, if not very precisely defined, and is noteworthy. If there are imperfections or deficiencies in the article, that's a reason to improve it, not to delete it. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The narrative is nebulous in many spots, and I think it never explains why duality is important, but the article is otherwise good. --Uncia (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a WP:SNOW if ever there was one. If the article is crappy, it should be fixed. The stated reason for deletion, "I have never seen the word "dual" or the concept of duality itself defined or discussed in mathematical literature" is a phenomenal admission of both ignorance and indolence, as any trivial web or literature search would have turned up dozens of examples. (Search for "dual" on MathWorld.) I would hope that nominator recognizes that this nomination was a serious mistake. -- Dominus (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he means he's never seens a general definition of the concept in the mathematical literature, that may only mean he's like everyone else. I don't think it's a precisely defined concept (yet?). But that doesn't mean the various ways it's used are unrelated and disparate concepts. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is not (as the nominating IP thought) attempting to define duality. Rather, this is something like a list, or a series of short summary style sections on different important examples of duality. User:C S above called it a disambiguation article, and he is correct in spirit. The text at the top is simply a brief introduction to the list, and could be rewritten if anyone had a serious argument (on the article talk page) that it was original research. Although I don't have the book at hand, it looks like the Oxford user's Guide to mathematics does try to give a general definition. [51] There is also a Britannica article [52], but it is substandard as usual. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not too happy either with those links, but I found a somewhat better article on duality in the Springer Encyclopedia of Mathematics. [53] (The Britannica article seems to be in the spirit of the Springer EoM article on duality principle.) It's a hodge-podge of duality in different areas, but one section begins "Duality is a very pervasive and important concept in (modern) mathematics". That section's purpose seems to be to link to all the different duality articles on that encyclopedia. What a novel concept. Maybe we should try and delete the Springer article too (oh wait, we can't). --C S (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Consider renaming this to List of duality concepts in mathematics (or similar). This article serves an encyclopedic purpose as a well-annotated list for navigating related concepts. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per John Z, Eppstein, C S, etc. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because the argument to delete has been been mercilessly repudiated. On a side note, I'm talented on running monte-carlo analysis of combinations of words and the differential meanings of each group. I give you... Duality (in the mathematics) which I think disambiguates everything mentioned by both sides of the delete discussion and is much clearer than the proposed alternatives yet most satisfactorily succinct. Afterall, I'm never taken a math class beyond Calc 1 since I was 18, so I can sympathize to Colonel's conclusion that there aren't resources which focus on the single issue of duality itself. Duality is a recurring theme which presents itself in different ways in many diverse branches. Sentriclecub (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per absence of delete preferences. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 03:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lanner and District Silver Band[edit]

Lanner and District Silver Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article with no independent sources on a local amateur band who once came third in a competition. Creator is a new user with no edits other than in respect of this subject. Absent reliable independent sources establishing notability, it needs to go. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment before acting too hastily on this one, please read User_talk:Orangemike#Lanner_and_District_Silver_Band. This isn't a new article, it's not a creation by that one editor. We do not need to act over-hastily on this: no-one thinks this is a good article as it stands, but it has sat there for years as it was, there's no need to treat it as an urgent spam removal. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please keep this article or merge it with the Lanner, Cornwall article. Brass/Silver bands are an important part of village and town culture in Cornwall. I hope to provide a photo of the Band Room, shortly. I have no personal interest in this band but love the genre.Vernon White . . . Talk 17:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:MUSIC - "placed in a major music competition". Sourcing certainly should be improved - hence the message to that effect on the article's talk page and the relevant local Wikiproject. That the creator is a new user is emphatically not grounds for deletion (unless biting the newbies is now regarded as a good thing), and I find it hard to understand why an admin with Guy's experience should apparently think it is. DuncanHill (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few sources turn up in a Google News archives search (although the texts of the articles are sadly not accessible through my own database), and I added two other references. I'd say it's enough to squeak by WP:N notability. Keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm no fan of WP:MUSIC. It's too focussed on commercial record releases in the US market (WTF is a "chart"?) and it ignores most forms of music that aren't Western mass-market. In the case of the UK brass band scene though (and User:Famousfieldy/Portishead Town Band‎), I'd suggest that WP:MUSIC is simply the wrong category anyway. These bands are more significant as an aspect of a local social network than they are as creators of music. Their notability is related to their village or factory community, not the quality (or abject lack of) of their output. Leyland, Grimethorpe or Black Dyke would remain notable if they couldn't play a note straight. In the case of the smaller or less-polished bands, this link with the community is even more important. If that community is notable, then a band with strong links to the identity of that community is also notable.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commissar (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

Commissar (Warhammer 40,000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No established real-world notability (there isn't any). No independent, third-party sources (there aren't any). Pure narration / exploration of a minor character type from a game universe. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no major real-world notablity. Transwiki to W40K Wikia if not already there. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent sources establish notability of the subject. I don't own the Compendium but I'm guessing there is a fair amount of OR as well. Protonk (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in some appropriate place, as should be the default in cases like this, preferred to nominating for deletion. DGG (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete. No references independent of Games Workshop to demonstrate notability. Anything relevant already exists in the Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000) article (which, however, needs work itself). A redirect could be possible, but I don't view this as a particularly relevant search term. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have transwikied this article here. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually transwiki, or just copy and paste the content? Pagrashtak 20:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I followed the directions presented at that wiki, as I don't have the capability to use their import function there. If someone does, I welcome them transferring the article history. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that. Falcorian (talk) has transwikied quite a few W40K articles, but I think he burned out on it. I believe he was exporting the history as well. If any more W40K articles need transwikied, you might check with him about it. Maybe he could at least direct you to someone else with the ability to import there. Pagrashtak 20:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirects to Wikia aren't appropriate. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 July 11. --Phirazo 04:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and soft redirect I don't see any problem with leaving it in as a soft re-direct to a wikia wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by UltraMagnus (talk • contribs) 20:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect to Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000) - per User:A Man In Black, this topic has no claim of notability and zero independent sources, the topic is of only questionable notability in universe, and furthermore violates most of our guidelines for writing about fiction --T-rex 01:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as a hoax or unverifable. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piwo Fellowship[edit]

Piwo Fellowship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Hoax student drinking club. Google had never heard of it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as organization with no claim to notability, and block article creator whose name resembles the article title. The cited sources do not even mention this organization. This is one of those articles about "secret" organizations we used to see a lot of at AfD, but less so in recent times. If the organization is so secret that the article has to cite rumors, the organization is probably not verifiable. Article creators shouldn't try to have it both ways -- if you want to promote an organization, you can't write an article saying that little is known about it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a student of the university sited in the article, there is some credence to their claim of notability. I have seen first hand accounts of their presence and read articles in the university newspaper, though am very keen to find more reliable (and cross-checkable!) references or even rumours. But as to their notability and notoriety, this fact is true. I will attempt to source more information on this. Matanakab 00:05, 24 July 2008 — Matanakab (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment: The above edit is likely a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. No other edits beyond this discussion. Speedy delete as hoax. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as it was previously. Fails WP:N and WP:V and is also an obvious hoax. TrulyBlue (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cheers! -- 16:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - 99% chance this is a silly hoax, 1% chance it exists but is so secret there's no information and it's not notable. Either way, delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as probable hoax. Given that it is so secret that reliable sources can't be found, it could also be deleted as unverifiable. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Student prank. --Lester 04:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well known amongst students of the university but Im unsure how to verify this? Mentioned in Newspaper and through Stein club mail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk • contribs)
  • Definitely Keep very well known group at Adelaide uni with locally significant social implications. Verifiable in On Dit -- 05:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.127.28.4 (talk • contribs) — 129.127.28.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete as prank/hoax.--Boffob (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The sock drawer seems to be emptying as I'd suspected it would. I maintain my speedy delete vote and move this be closed under WP:SNOW if possible. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unreferenced nonsense. WWGB (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as complete bollocks (not from viewing the article but as an ex Adelaide Uni Student) - Peripitus (Talk) 11:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is conspicuously lacking citations to support its many claims. The organisation does not meet the primary criterion specified in WP:ORG. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, either it's a silly hoax or a secret society with no information available on it (and therefore fails WP:V). Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Potter[edit]

Dan Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Computer game maker tagged for notability concerns since January. Article has no references. As a businessman he started a two man company. None of the games they have created appear notable. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 22:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave McRae[edit]

Dave McRae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Promotional page for a voice over artist/acotr without any notable roles. Awards do not appear notable. Article is unsourced. Note that most edits are made by single purpose accounts and by someone claiming to be the subjects Public Relations manager. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a more meaningful rationale than WP:PERNOM. After all, Jasynnash2 did slap up that unsightly, "This is not a majority vote," template.. so of course he is referring to all votes, and not just the keep votes. Right? ...Right? SashaNein (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I meant all "votes". Sorry if that wan't clear by my actions in the first place. I'll try to be more transparent in my actions in future. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I can extend it to as many words as you'd like, but having checked for news articles about this person [54] and [55] and noticing that those hits don't seem to be for this guy. Refining search by adding either voice [56] or actor [57], and having looked through normal Google hits for "Dave McRae" voice actor [58] which are minimal and do not provide any evidence of reliable third party sources discussing him, I think I am entitled to say I agree with the nominator that he is not notable, either from info found in the article, or from info that can subsequently be found by searching the web.
Have also noticed that the edit claiming him to be 'one of Canada's top voice artists' [59] on the linked International Modeling and Talent Association page was added by a very similar IP to the one claiming to be his PR Manager [60], and who's main interest was also D McRae see: Special:Contributions/24.57.146.167. I do actually investigate these things if I'm going to leave more than a passing comment. Summary of my investigation is "I agree with the nominator and Jasynnash2" -Hunting dog (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete - I disagree totally with the above nomination. I just recently finished a paper for a university class on the entertainment industry and television voice overs in Canada. The information on this wikipedia page was awesome, because it gave me the basics of someone working in Canada, and led me to his official site, where all the information was. You guys say he has no notable work? have you been to his site, and the voice over page? You delete this guy, you might as well delete every voice artist. Wikipedia is awesome, and this article helped me into getting more information on this gentleman. There are far more pages that need deleting than this, trust me. -User:Mastermind81:— Mastermind81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment welcome to this discussion and to wikipedia (glad you found the project useful). Please review the policies and guidelines of the project and than address the issues of this article from that standpoint. I've placed a welcome template on your usertalk page to aid you in that endeavour. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete - I can see what the other users are saying about the promotional aspect of the article, but this does not warrant a deletion, it needs a rewrite of the information. It's not like this guy is some fraud, I'm pretty sure he is who he seems to be, but the article needs to be re-written, not deleted. So if anyone knows this guy and wants to pipe up and re write, go to town. Thats what needs to be done. I vote for re-write, not delete. Mastermind 81 is right, there are far more ridiculous articles, some with only 1 or 2 sentences that need to be deleted. This guy is clearly a professional in his industry who has had a poor article written about him. That's all. bobbydog96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC) — bobbydog96 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And welcome to you as well. Again as I stated above please have a review of our policies and guidelines and discuss the article using those points. I'll be along shortly to your usertalk page to place a welcome tag which should point you in the correct general direction. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* do not delete No one has brought it to my attention. To be quite honest, I stumbled upon this page after learning his was the voice of Final 24, one of my favorite documentary series, nonetheless plain and simple it warrants a re-write not a delete. This is coming from someone who has been surfing wikipeida for years now, and I am disgusted with the amount of crap that seems to appear on the site. Stuff that has no credibility, no reliability and no backup. If this guy Dave McRae had no website to back up his work, I'd probably agree with the deletion, but after looking at this site, it's clear he's a pro, that has had a poor article written about him. It would be a shame to lose this article from the net because of a sloppy written article, not because lack of truthful information.

I hope this is the correct spot to post my thoughts Jasynnash2, I apologize if I am in the wrong section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbydog96 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without prejudice to recreation. In a few years, he might be notable. He's got more credits to his name than many folks who are AfD'ed, but he still fails WP:ENTERTAINER per my read. Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete this is a hard one to figure out, because I agree with bobbydog96, the article is not written properly, yet the guy is credible, and i.m.o deserves a page. I think go for the rewrite, and if something still seems off, than seriously think about deleting until more work comes from this guy, but re-write is needed in my opinion. There is enough there for interest, I certainly found it interesting, I didn't know he was one of the guys who do trailers, and with out this article, I may have never known that. But anyway..... I think it's just the way it's written. I have seen a lot worse on extremely notable actors, and filmmakers, and they're never mentioned for deletion or rewrites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.97.163 (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The IP address used to make the above comment has been used to make 2 edits. The first was a message on my talk page signed "Rich Houston public relations Dave McRae". The second is the above who says they didn't know what Dave did. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not keep per the Delete voter's rationale and the rampant "do not delete" votes that are usually a clear sign that an article needs to go. JuJube (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meatpuppet keeps and "per nom" deletes everywhere. This is probably the weakest AFD discussion ever made. Newcomers need to be politely educated about policies, and veterans need to be flogged with a wooden spoon. SashaNein (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replied above - assuming being a voter who had edited WP before today makes me count as a veteran, I'd prefer a WP:trout to a wooden spoon. -Hunting dog (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Has anyone actually tried to contact this McRae guy? To see if he really does have a public relations manager named Richard Houston? Or are we just going to speculate? I also saw the posting on your discussion Duffbeerforme, and you're right, it's totally the same IP address, clearly someone messing around. But there is an easy way to figure this out, send him an e-mail or contact his agents...I would assume he, or they would like to know if some idiot is messing around on wikipedia pretending to be afiliated with him. I still think the guy deserves a page however. Like I stated above it helped me in a final paper for university last spring. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastermind81 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only a few of minor roles for the moment and no substantial third-party coverage by reliable sources that I could find. Might become notable in the future but for now definitely fails WP:CREATIVE. Note to those doing google-searching: there are apparently a few other people with the same name who might actually be notable (one is the CEO of University Health Systems of Eastern Carolina and another is an academic from the Australian National University), so beware of false positives when googling. Nsk92 (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was author blanked article, G7 deletion took place. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 07:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted (band)[edit]

Trusted (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band doesn't meet WP:MUSIC and article is ballgazing to next year. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 10:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lacks sources, releases, everything. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. JohnCD (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It needs sourcing, but they would appear to count under WP:MUSIC#C4 of having been on a national concert tour. (Beware of the Western bias in Wikipedia.) Bondegezou (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if you mean the tour mentioned in the article, it's "The Day Field Tour 2009" - it hasn't happened yet. JohnCD (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. References need to be added in.. Tan ǀ 39 23:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flogger (fashion)[edit]

Flogger (fashion) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NEO Avi (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteGoogle hits are this article and people being described as flogging fashion (selling or promoting fashion). It's either a neologism or a hoax LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. WP:NEO or WP:HOAX, take thy pick. tomasz. 13:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, first of all, this article is not a hoax.
Secondly, yes, that's true, it's a neologism, it born the past year, but exists many reliable sources about the term and about the phenomenon. The article don't have anyone, that's a pity, and I sure that it's the principal reason which cause this nomination. But well, it's also one reason because the article is only a stub.
This article it's about a phenomenon with have a enormous significance at least in Argentina, is estimated that has become a habit of living almost two million of young people. [61] And, of course, the principal media of that country has treated this matter. For give some examples, Clarín, the principal diary of Argentina and the second more important in the hispanic world, published this note, which is the principal source of the article. La Nación -the second most important in the country- also has published about the matter, in this note. And we can found a lot of more references, in Crítica de la Argentina [62], La Voz del Interior [63], Channel 13 -the more watched in all the country- [64], and the list goes on.
I think that the article should be expanded, and the references should be added, but I think that the relevance of the matter and the reliable sources justify its maintenance.
So, I decided to Keep it. Daniel dj87 (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral inclining towards keep. i admit, i had not seen Daniel dj87's sources before i !voted, and having given them a brief glance, it does indeed seem like this is real and potentially notable. Spanish is not my 1st language so i will have a more detailed look later, but it is looking like a keeper if those can be incorporated. tomasz. 12:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently non-notable. I'm not convinced this year's youth fashion in one South American country belongs in any encyclopedia. I would go so far as to say that fashion sources are not independent of fashions for Wikipedia purposes, since they make their money by promoting fashions. Should the craze documentably go worldwide, or even continent-wide, I will be happy to amend my !vote. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long as sources can be found it should be kept. Policy aside, the article helped me understand when my Argentine friend told me she was a flogger. Searching on youtube brings up several videos, perhaps the content there can help indicate where sources will be. --B Fizz (e•t•c) 17:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonnotable neologism. I can't find any English sources in notable publications. Themfromspace (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge (non-admin closure), editors agreed to merge See Talk:Little Maria. triwbe (talk) 09:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Little Maria[edit]

Little Maria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional character- fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) triwbe (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominiator. Amalthea (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashburne Glen[edit]

Ashburne Glen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BAND . Notability is not inherited, and this one is even twice removed. No significant coverage in the references or anywhere that I could find. Amalthea (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, I take it back and will close it in a minute, on grounds of WP:MUSIC: Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable. A weird guideline in my eyes, but apparently that's consensus. --Amalthea (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 22:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Rimmer[edit]

Mike Rimmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a non-notable presenter, however assertions of working for the BBC etc. means it's not really a speedy under WP:CSD#A7. Wider discussion required. Pedro :  Chat  08:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Has a radio show, listed as a show on MySpace, and website has a higher pagerank than the Wikipedia article on Google, which is my unofficial litmus test. Keep unless someone forwards some evidence that this guy is, in fact, not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crtrue (talk • contribs) 08:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (1) How could anyone possibly provide evidence that he is not notable? I don't think WP:N works that way. (2) If the article is kept, it needs some rewriting. It's basically a puff piece for him at the moment. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, that's not the way it works. The burden is on the editor who adds information or creates an article to establish the notability of the subject of the article AND provide sufficient 3rd party verifiable resources.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't, unless Wikipedia exists in a parallel universe. The article is a bit introvertial, but the award might suggest some sort of notability. WilliamH (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about the award was added post this AFD, and certianly there is enough suggestion to keep it from being speedied (hence why I brought it here). I'm not convinced either way at th emoment, but subsequent additions to the article since the start of this debate have certainly improved the notability issue in my eyes. Pedro :  Chat  10:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BIO insists on "significant" coverage in 3rd party sources. There are 2 references there, 1 is written by his employer (and is therefore a primary source) and the is to an award who's significance is not clear. Unless additional references are added demonstrating notability of this broadcaster, I'm not seeing notability here.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Rtphokie says (BTW I assume you mean "I'm seeing non-notability""), the two references given are not enough to assert notability. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as bove. Insufficient assertion of notability. Eusebeus (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and redirect to Negroponte switch (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unwiring[edit]

Unwiring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologism with little potential for a full article. Little content to salvage for a merge. At best, might qualify for Wikitionary.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Tagged for CSD G7. - Icewedge (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Techpro5238[edit]

If possible I would just like my user page, and talk page to be deleted from wikipedia.

Kind Regards,


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. ——RyanLupin • (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2001 FIFA Club World Championship[edit]

2001 FIFA Club World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Some time ago, there was an AfD about this article on PT Wikipedia and the article was kept. I believe it happened because there are a lot of soccer fans in Brazil. Actually, I couldn't find anything on Wikipedia policy that could actually be a reason to delete the article. However there's one big problem: The event actually NEVER happened. It was cancelled. So, all tables on the article are full of zeros and none of the matches were played. IMHO it should be merged to FIFA Club World Cup since the only useful information is why it was cancelled. But I believe I should ask for opinions before doing that. Tosqueira (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's still a notable competition, it was planned and the fact that it didn't actually take place isn't a good enough reason to delete it. Maybe tidy it up and remove the tables etc though... Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 07:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although the article could be referenced better, it has a lot of useful information about a proposed tournament that was eventually cancelled. – PeeJay 07:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are articles for the 1940 Summer Olympics, 1940 Winter Olympics, 1944 Summer Olympics and 1944 Winter Olympics, even though those were cancelled (due to the Second World War). The event is notable in itself because it was planned in detail (match dates, teams and stadiums set). It needs tidied up by removing the zeroes but shouldn't be deleted. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above reasons; planning, inherent notability, etc.Londo06 09:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above reasons. I was actually rather surprised to see this come up at. Hell, even keep the group standings, just reference it better. Blackmissionary (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Originally held if no problem caused. Reason have to explain why this tournament canceled in the article. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 09:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per consensus above. GiantSnowman 16:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pile-on vote. Notability is there. u:Jmorrison has strong points. – 'Latics (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It was planned, there were fixtures, logos, host cities, teams. It's a important register. --Mrzero (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tan ǀ 39 23:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noelle North[edit]

Noelle North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are some passing mentions in a few WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, but no real significant discussion whatsoever after searching in multiple database archives. Most hits in news archives simply listed her name and the character she voiced, no discussion or any other info at all beyond one line or less. Recommend deletion as there isn't really anything relevant to merge to at this point. Cirt (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • leave this article up, but include the references to her YOU TUBE performance keeping children from entering a Subway sandwich shop. -- a shop she doesn't own. videos of actions speak louder than words — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.27.218 (talk)
Per WP:PEOPLE: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. -- Can this be demonstrated for this individual? I do not think so. Cirt (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ENTERTAINER. Different criteria that she could arguably meet. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not get around the lack of significant discussion in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point being that "significant discussion . . ." is not a requirement of WP:ENTERTAINER. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't change the fact that she doesn't meet the reqs for WP:ENTERTAINER with or without significant discussion. Felixmeister (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That could go either way, IMO. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

  • Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.

- Doesn't satisfy this, voice actors are by their nature far less visible in the public's mind than flesh and blood actors. Who voices of a character generally becomes noteable only if that actor is already established as a flesh and blood actor, unless they have voiced multiple characters within an extremely popular cartoon that has had it's own noteable influence on pop culture eg: Simpsons then there is no reason to include them in there own article. imdb is a better place for completeness of cast listings.

  • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

- I think we'll avoid this req, don't you?

  • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

- Eg Mel Blanc. doesn't meet this. Felixmeister (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article fails to meet WP:ENTERTAINER and Wikipedia:Notability (people). She may have notability within scientology, but is not notable outside that little group.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd never heard of her prior to the YouTube video. If this article is to be kept then the reference to the incident involving her preventing children from entering Subway, as recorded on YouTube, has to stay too as it is that which has contributed most to her recent notoriety; the fact this is a matter for discussion demonstrates that.Dire13 (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congregation Beth Israel (Lebanon, Pennsylvania)[edit]

Congregation Beth Israel (Lebanon, Pennsylvania) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:ORG WP:NOTE Non-notable religious branch. There's nothing special about this synagogue, all the references are to its own web sites, and there are few non-directory references in Google. John Nagle (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —dvdrw 04:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First off, I'm really impressed with Jay's synagogue articles. From my perspective, I look at this article like this: The architect of the synagogue, Percival Goodman is notable, and I've always thought that a notable architect's buildings were like a notable musician's albums- notable and worthy of inclusion by extension from their authors. Goodman did design some fifty synagogues in America which may be stressing this principle but I wouldn't mind including them all. On a quick search I found this book [66] where the author uses this synagogue as an example to illustrate Goodman's belief that the "[bima] was the precursor to theater in the round." I find that interesting from an art historical perspective. That's what I think, though there are plenty of other angles other than architecture from which to approach inclusion of this article. I can add some sourced info to the article tomorrow, but I trust Jay's judgment in starting this article and would like to see how he expands it. dvdrw 04:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to DVD RW's excellent points, I would note that although Conservative Judaism is the second or perhaps third largest Jewish denomination in the United States, with the vast majority of Conservative Jews living in the Unites States, there are, by my count, still only 668 Conservative synagogues in all of the country.[67] Most of these are of fairly recent vintage, since the United Synagogue was only founded in 1913. Congregation Beth Israel (Lebanon, Pennsylvania) is unusually old, being founded in 1907, and has always been, and still remains, the only synagogue in the Lebanon area. It's also notable because of its rabbi, Paula Reimers: she's a convert from Christianity to Judaism,[68], one of the early female graduates of the Jewish Theological Seminary, and she left Emanu-el in Burbank after a fairly notorious incident.[69] Jayjg (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm uncomfortable with a stub being sent to AfD a few hours after it was created. Give some editors a chance to build the article. It sounds like dvdrw and Jayjg have found some points that make the building and the congregation notable. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a notable synagogue and sources are reliable. It was founded in 1907 and it is the only Jewish congregation in the Lebanon area. I've checked references. The article easily passes WP:N. Jayjg has given enough reasons why this article should not be deleted. The article was created just few hours ago. It takes time to build articles. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, no valid reason to delete. SlimVirgin talk|edits 06:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because it is a notable synagogue for a number of reasons: It has been the one and only synagogue in the area of Lebanon, Pennsylvania since 1907, for over 100 years. (2) It serves as the focal point for all organized Jewish life in Lebanon, Pennsylvania and nearby surroundings. (3) Such synagogues are the only way to note and study the history of the Jewish people in local and regional communities. (4) Its rabbis have played an activist role in American politics and have been noted as such. (5) It is now an expanded article with many reliable sources quoted. (6) The nominator is being hasty and is probably in violation of WP:DEMOLISH, by not giving its creator more reasonable notice and time to work on it. IZAK (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please do not make dire pronouncements that someone is in violation of an ESSAY. Edison (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Edison: Hmm, I don't see why you use the word "dire", all I said was that the nominator was "...probably in violation of WP:DEMOLISH..." (also note the use of the word "probably" to give him the benefit of the doubt as per WP:AGF) in nominating this article within hours of its creation while it was a legitmate stub. And kindly note, it is widespread common practice to cite essays, I was NOT the creator of WP:DEMOLISH but I do find it useful in making a point, and many more of them are well known and useful, such as WP:SPIDER and others that help creating a framework for dialogue rather than talking at cross-purposes. So please do not threaten me with your dire pronouncements either. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please do not falsely characterize a polite request as a "threat." Thank you. Edison (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: The article has now been substantially expanded and the nominator is respectfully requested to withdraw his nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is so good that I've nominated it for the DYK. I think an admin should close this AfD discussion. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest that there be no hasty closure. Let the AFD run its five days. Edison (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok. Let this AfD discussion run for five days. I will try my best to save this article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Slrubenstein | Talk 10:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although the article now has 24 references, few, if any, of them meet the WP:NOTE criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Going down the list, references 1,3,4,5, and 6 all point to the organization's web site, so they don't confer notability. Reference 2, re Percival Goodman, is just a one-line mention of the architect's involvement in the building ("a barn-style white building"). There's no indication of architectural notability; it's not a listed building. References 7 and 8 are routine bios of people associated with the organization, not published by a major source. Reference 9 is a letter signed by hundreds of clergy. Reference 10 has a one-line reference to rabbi Paula Reimer, but it's not about her. (She herself might be newsworthy, from the "Israel flag incident" in Berkeley, as Jayjg (talk · contribs) mentions, but that was before she went to Lebanon.) Reference 11 is by Paula Reimer, so that's not an independent source. Reference 12 is from the Dallas Morning News, but it's about Capitol Ministries and doesn't mention this synagogue or Paula Reimer at all. Reference 13 is Capitol Ministries itself. Reference 14 is a duplicate of reference 11. Reference 15 is a one-line mention in a blog of Paula Reimer quoting someone else. Reference 16 is a brief link to a publication by Paula Reimer, and reference 17 is that publication. Reference 18 is a brief bio of Paula Reimer because she does some part-time work at a local college. References 19-24 are to brief notes about members of the synagogue who did something marginally notable, including publishing a cookbook.
So after all this effort to pad out the references, we really don't have notability. It's striking that all this effort to find notability produced so little. It just seems to be a nice little synagogue that's been in existence for a century without doing anything very notable. That's very small-town America. --John Nagle (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "all this effort". I've added material from another source. As for WP:NOTE, it's generally a reasonable enough guideline, but doesn't really work well in this kind of situation, as it doesn't really deal with synagogues. Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Nagle: You are coming at this from the wrong perspective. All of Judaism and most of the nitty-gritty of Jewish history for the last 2,000 years is based precisely on these kinds of "nice little non-notable synagogue(s)" and just the mere fact that this one has lasted so long, over one hundred years, is in itself a notable fact by any standard anyhow it has other factors making it notable that you are now deliberately ignoring and even denigrating it seems. Also, user Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) had once noted [70] in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Dov Keller that: "...Religious sources and media of notable religious organizations are perfectly acceptable reliable sources to establish notability of religious subjects and figures. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here. There is no problem I can see that can justify a delete vote..." and the same applies here." Hope this helps, IZAK (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it shocking that Izak would suggest that religious congregations of different faiths be judged by different notability standards: that a Jewish congregation which existed for 100 years is presumed to be more notable than a Christian congregation which existed for the same period. Edison (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a proposal in 2007 to give churches a presumption of notability (see Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations)), something Wikipedia does for secondary schools. It was rejected. So there is no special case for churches, and policy remains WP:NOTE and WP:ORG: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." --John Nagle (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nagle: Your argument needs to be based on reality. Here are a few points to ponder: (1) While the Jewish population of the world today is a little over 13 million, with perhaps only about 20% of that number actively connected with any religious and synagogue life, on the other hand there are over two billion Christians in the world so that therefore (2) while the two religions, may have have equal spiritual significance, they are vastly different in numbers of adherents and related instutions. Thus, (3) while one may be able to trim back Christian institutions and there will still be huge amounts that get local media coverage, the amount of synagogues are much, much fewer and their notability arises from the fact that they serve as they do for the much smaller Jewish population. (4) You are also downgrading significant facts because noone is foisting an unkown synagogue that has never been written about in any way here, and that with at least a dozen mentions in local Jewish newspapers, websites and in some books, the synagogue is notable in Jewish life. (5) Your other note about the rabbis and the synagogues being different, in this case, while the rabbis have done some notable things they should not be in separate articles, in fact the precedent has been not to create separate articles for clergy or personalities if they can and should be part of the institutions they head. (6) It is very subjective for you to judge the sources as "trivial" when quite a number of experienced Judaic editors feel that the sources in this article are more than sufficient to meet the threshold requirements of WP:RS and WP:CITE. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Individual religious congregations and their buildings are not inherently notable. Claiming this one is notable as the oldest (or only one) of its type in a small town of 24,000 is as unconvincing as an elementary school or club being notable because it is the oldest (or only) one in its small town. 1907 is not that long ago, and we have deleted articles about a great many religious congregations far older. Per John Nagle's analysis, the refs which have been added fail to satisfy WP:N. They are either not independent of the subject, or do not have Congregation Beth Israel as a main subject and many only make passing mention. A passing reference in a book about the architect does not show that this building itself is notable or important in architectural history. Edison (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Edison, it is unfair to compare an elementary school or a club with a synagogue. Congregation Beth Israel serves as the focal point for all organized Jewish life in Lebanon, Pennsylvania. The synagogue is also affiliated with the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete At first glance it looks like a well-written article but most of it is unrelated fluff and the sources have been shown by User:Nagle to be mostly worthless. As much as I'd like to see this article stay, as it appears to be a local landmark, it doesn't seem to meet the specifications of WP:GROUP. Themfromspace (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ample relaible and verifiable sources establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An indicator of whether the building is architecturally or otherwise historically significant is whether the building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is not. doncram (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have many articles about buildings not on the Register, which normally has a 50-year cutoff point for listings. There's no work by Cesar Pelli on the National Register, yet we have many articles about his buildings because he's a prominent and notable contemporary architect. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case anyone's confused, I'm voting keep. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As others mention, it's hardly reasonable to launch a delete campaign a few hours after the article is first posted; while some of the references are a bit overreaching I think there's already plenty here and indications that there's plenty more. Insulting something as "very small-town America" hardly justifies deletion.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While John Nagle's source analysis is thorough and notable as a reason to delete, I also find it disturbing that an article so carefully crafted in its first 24 hours is subjected to a harsher analysis than Pokemon, Family Guy, and Yu-Gi-Oh episodes which have had months to ferment. in the interest of AGF and the community based article building, I'm for keeping this article for at least 6 months, at which time, if needed, it can be revisited. ThuranX (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Early AfDs are sometimes troublesome, but it's the responsibility of the article creator to demonstrate notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination) for a contentious AfD over a programming language that turned out to be non-notable. One of the big issues there was whether the AfD was too soon. The first AfD was indecisive, and during it the article acquired many references, but they were very weak ones. See my comments there. After a week or so of looking hadn't turned up any good non-promotional references, there was a second AfD, resulting in deletion. If notability is tough to establish within a few days during an AfD, it's probably not there. --John Nagle (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. So far, I read above several possible routes to notability, via the rabbi, architect, age w/in Conservative movement, and/or relevance to Lebanon. However, it's not clear to me that any independent and reliable sources are themselves affirming these routes to notability. (They may incidentally confirm the data, but that's not the same thing, is it?) What reliable source(s) most clearly point out the shul's notability? Thanks. HG | Talk 09:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC) PS Also, I don't see how criticisms of the AfD nomination/process are arguments to keep. Pls discuss elsewhere.[reply]
    • Hi HG: There are enough facts in this article derived from local newspapers, books, other websites, that in sum make for good resources and an article that meets all the requirements for it to be kept. IZAK (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand your view about sourced facts. Perhaps I have different expectations; in any case, I would still appreciate an answer to my question. Thanks Izak. HG | Talk 10:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Others have made excellent cases as to why this article should be kept and I agree with them. That being said that I'd like to point out how, if the criticisms are so few and so well-defined, any editor who isn't satisfied with the state of the article in question may use those criticisms as the starting point for improvement efforts. This goes for any other article. If you can point out what's wrong so easily, then it should be that much easier to fix what's wrong. So, I look forward to seeing how all editors supporting deletion will direct their attention to more constructive solutions. --yonkeltron (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is only lacking notability if you're against articles on interesting, historical synagogues designed by notable architects. It makes me scratch my head and wonder why anyone would sit and scan the list of synagogues looking to peck them off one at a time... Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is well written and sourced, and the synagogue appears to have at least some historical importance. -- Nsaum75 (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep historic churches and synagogues can well be notable, and this is a good example to illustrate that. DGG (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The synogogue is notable. No reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Frankly, I wish we had a well sourced article for every church in the country. givein just this sort of informatino, when it was founded, why, where it is affiliated, what kind of building. In this case, with a notable rabbi and a notable architect, I cannot imagine why we are even discussing deletion.Elan26 (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
  • Question. A lot of the discussion here seems to be revolving around the idea that the synagogue is notable because individuals associated with it were notable, but "notability is inherited" is a canonical argument to avoid in deletion discussions (see WP:INHERITED). Is there any evidence that it has some independent notability of its own? Is it architecturally distinctive, did important events happen there, etc? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, no. The architect is somewhat notable, but even in a book about the architect, the building ("a barn-style white building") merited only a one-line mention. The rabbi was involved in a minor political flap in a previous job. The congregation, but not the building, is a century old. That's about it. Unless you take the (rejected) WP:CHURCH position that all churches are presumed notable, as some editors have suggested above, this one just doesn't make the cut. --John Nagle (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The position taken by those commenting here is not that "all churches are presumed notable", or even that all synagogues are - and note, some of those commenting have pointed out inherent differences between churches and synagogues. They also point out that the WP:NOTE guideline does not effectively measure (or even address) notability in the case of synagogues, and that this synagogue is notable, for the reasons given. I've been creating some synagogue stubs recently, and of the synagogues I've researched fewer than half are notable, as far as I can tell. It's not "all or nothing", and it is not helpful to misrepresent the comments made here in that way. Jayjg (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although notability isn't inherited, I do see a difference betw the synagogue's relation to the rabbi and the architect. It could be that wherever "Washington slept here" is noteworthy, but I don't think wherever Paula Reimers is rabbi is necessarily notable. She's marginally notable and she doesn't lend much notability to the place she's at. On the other hand, Goodman designed the building and so, arguably, he does directly lend the synagogue some notability. How much? Well, the bldg is one of 3 cited as evidence in a paragraph about how he adjusts style to place. This strike me as better than a sentence but isn't that still fairly marginal? Or is it enough, when combined with the other marginal factors, like the rabbi, the age, and it relevance to the local area? HG | Talk 03:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the discussion has revolved around that idea, but certainly not all. Its age and unique position in the community, among other things, have also been mentioned. Jayjg (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The building is only metaphorically described as evoking a barn. Architects talk like that. It is a mid-century modernist statement by an important architect.Elan26 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Elan[reply]
  • the rabbi is also notable, for several incidents of politicl activism. And for her theological paper on the use of male and female gender trerms in referring to God in prayer. Any theologian would envy a paper that, like Reimer's was given a serious discussion in the notable Catholic journal First Things. I only did a brief search. Her pro-Palestinian activism in particular has drawn coverage.Elan26 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Elan[reply]
  • Keep. If Jayjg wants to go on creating very high-quality articles about North American synagogues he should be given the benefit of the doubt regarding their notability. Call me an inclusionist, but I do think proper deletions require – over and above technical applications of the notability guideline – a good common-sense explanation of how a given article undermines the encyclopedia (promotional puffery, for example). Such an explanation has not been provided in the above discussion. Instead, there are technical notability arguments, and as intelligent and insightful as these are (John Nagle and HG deserve credit) I do not find them compelling in the aggregate; and they frequently seem to turn on distinctions the significance of which is debatable (“the congregation, but not the building, is a century old"). I would think the technical notability demands are indeed satisfied by the building's architectural pedigree, modest as that may be. The fact that it's been described by one critic as a "barn-style white building" is neither here nor there; Elan26 is right that architects (and their critics) often talk that way.
Now, there has indeed been a pattern of pro-Israel editors creating and expanding articles in order to magnify the visibility or promote the google ratings of obscure ideological memes and hobby-horses (cf Pallywood, Alleged Ouze Merham interview of Ariel Sharon, etc.). The congregation's rabbi apparently got into a little scrap in Burbank (pre-Beth Israel days) when she invited some Muslims to dinner post 9-11 and asked that the Israeli flag not be tacked to the wall of the sukkah for the occasion. Not so much a tempest in a teapot as a light shower in a thimble. Neutral editors should check in on this page from time to time to ensure that it doesn't become a vehicle for spotlighting and magnifying a pseudo-scandal from the rabbi's past. But that's an argument for content vigilance related to NPOV, UNDUE, and BLP – not an argument for preemptive deletion.--G-Dett (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if the synagogue had some non-local coverage. I checked Nexis, a quite extensive database, and there don't seem to be any articles about the congregation outside the local area. HG | Talk 19:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Redirecting to Algae fuel afterwards.  Sandstein  18:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Algaeponics[edit]

Algaeponics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hate to be a g-hit counter but this gets exactly 0.[71] Contested prod. - Icewedge (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete - first article I've seen to have zero g-hits... maybe the subject can be notable for that (joking!). Anyway, the article suggests that it is also a nelogism. Non-Notable Neologism. Nice phrase to use as a username... -Samuel Tan 03:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: User should place this in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. The article does not indicate why it is notable for inclusion. – Jerryteps 04:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect - to either Hydroponics or Algae ... both? It's only a sentence, and definitely should not be an article to itself. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. This term is so new that Google hasn't even heard of it yet, so I see no point in a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer Farfel and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 05:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Not only are there no general webhits but there are no google scholar, google books, blog hits, google groups hits either. The word shows up a handful of times in the linked to yahoo group where there is some disagreement over whether someone has a trademark on the word (and the people on both side seem to agree that the word is a neologism). The only other thing I can find using the word is that someone registered Algaeponics.info recently[72]. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Neologism for a process already mentioned in the Algaculture article. Needs redirect to Algaculture#Oil_Extraction. That is all. Carson (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction -- redirect to Algaculture:Algae as an energy source; has more to do with the oil-as-in-petro-alternative than simply algae oil extraction. Carson (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on -- Good, Better, and Best: Algae fuel should be where this Redirects to. Carson (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Ty 23:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernat Ylla[edit]

Bernat Ylla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable artist. Besides his own webpage, I can't find any info on him. Also, while the following is a fixable issue, please note that the entire text is original research. Althena (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No - it's a copyvio! Johnbod (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment- very, very few online sources about him so i'm bordering on delete, but we might want to wait for a Spanish reader to verify that the Spanish sources online don't prove notability.-Samuel Tan 03:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: Article has no references at all. The article seems very in depth (just by glancing at it) but has no references in it. The page needs to be wikified and structured. If the author fixes these issues than my vote is a keep. – Jerryteps 04:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (e/c) Comment. Google only gives a couple of directories and whatnot (even in Spanish), but GScholar turns up this piece in Catalan. (It should open as a PDF, but I'm not sure it will.) I'm withholding any opinion until a Catalan speaker says something about that source, although it would still be pretty sparse coverage. By the way, both this article and the French version appear to be translations of a Spanish text at bernatylla.com; does that infringe on the author's copyright? AnturiaethwrTalk 04:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course it does! After the first para, the whole article appears to be a copyvio, & it is the editors only contribution. The guy might be weakly notable - as usual the critic is so vague it is hard to discern anything at all about the painting or its significance - but all that should certainly be removed if kept. The French wiki article claims:

- Tableaux au Musée d'Art Moderne de Barcelone, au Musée de Chatelleraut, au Musée de Skofja-Loka (Slovénie) - Acquisitions par le Musée des Beaux Arts de la Ville de Paris - which would be his best claim to notability. Johnbod (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I speak a little Spanish, and the article is indeed a word-for-word translation of the Spanish source provided in above, and my handy online translator confirms that. Overlooking the copyright vio, WP:CREATIVE says that a notable artist must be "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums," and I see only meager evidence that one of Ylla's works is housed in a French museum. Although at least one Spanish source has written a colorful examination of his art, WP:CREATIVE also advises that the artist's work be represented in "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I see no evidence of that. Okiefromokla questions? 00:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I didn't realize that the Spanish source was Ylla's own website, not an independent review. Nevertheless, this additional non-English source provided above would not sufficiently establish notability by itself, regardless of its content. Multiple secondary sources are necessary. Okiefromokla questions? 00:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. BJTalk 09:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage ball[edit]

Garbage ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blazingly fails WP:NFT, no sources, no links, some silly made up game... creator of article removed prod, so here it is on AfD... Adolphus79 (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - while i must say that the g-hits for "garbage ball" are pretty interesting, none improve the subject's notability, which is so far non-existent. -Samuel Tan 03:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: It's an article about a non notable sport that seems to be only played by one person; the article creator. – Jerryteps 04:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jerry teps, except that his brother apparently plays as well. That doesn't help the article's notability, though. AnturiaethwrTalk 04:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT. Amusing article, but there are plenty of more appropriate venues for this material. Neil916 (Talk) 05:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Someone G3 this please... Article is WP:MADEUP and in my view, vandalism. Obliterate... Poof! --Pmedema (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I originally tagged it for speedy, that was replaced with a prod by User:Icewedge, and the prod was then removed by the creator. That's why it's here on AfD now... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put a {{nonsense}} tag on the article myself because the user that removed the original speedy tag was not an administrator. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benison Islamic School[edit]

Benison Islamic School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure what Wikipedia's notability requirements are for schools, but this school doesn't seem notable at all to me. Althena (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete - clearly non-notable. 4 sources online, one a forum, 3 from wikipedia. (the schools notability guidelines are here)-Samuel Tan 03:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability. --John Nagle (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails the notability criteria for WP:SCHOOLS - not secondary and no achievements or accolades that suggest notability for inclusion - [73]. Wisdom89 (T / C) 08:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article doesn't passes WP:SCHOOLS. Only directory entries such as name, address, school type, staff member listings, etc. are not adequate. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete (G12 - copyright violation) by Athaenara. Nonadmin close Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Data Network[edit]

National Data Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reads like an advertisement. Possible COI issues. Also, possible copyvio. Fails WP:N as well. Undeath (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Article seems notable in my opinion. The article seems to be copy-pasted from some other website though. There are many problems with the page though. Reference's are there but they arn't placed. It needs an info box and the introduction is too long. – Jerryteps 04:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - it appears that the article has already been G12'd for copywrite issues. --Pmedema (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, with no prejudice against recreation (or redirection) if the sources are increased to show not only that this particular compnany exists, but is in fact, notable. Keeper ǀ 76 21:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andino Clarinets[edit]

Andino Clarinets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reads like an advertisement and I can't see any thing likely to be added that would expand this beyond a stub advertising article. While worthy of a brief mention in the articles for Gemeinhardt and Luis Rossi, it would need something beyond press release boilerplate to be worthy of an article of its own Delete but without prejudice to being recreated if it can ever be expanded past the press release stage. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails notability and reads like a catalog description. Two refs are nearly identical and press releases from Gemstone Musical Instruments who makes these. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I don't think "reading like a catalog description" is a reason for deletion. If anything, this is a borderline case which hinges on whether this citation] alone is considered a reliable secondary source, and is sufficient to prove notability.-Samuel Tan 03:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this article, and several other related articles, were written by User talk:Kurtgem, who may be related to the parent company Gemstone Musical Instruments. Of the three articles, two appear to be sales ads, and the other is about Gemstone, and only mentions briefly that Andino was recently acquired. I would think these do not fulfill WP:RS. In the absence of reliable sources, it would fail WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One ref does not count as significant coverage, and it is merely a profile on the manufacturer, which is not the subject of this article. It might not be a bad idea to AfD the other articles written by the above-mentioned flute-spammers. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I worked on the article after it was tagged for speedy but before it was AfDed. I think the two articles in Music Trades magazine should be considered independent, since they appeared in a magazine, even if they are based in part on announcements from the company. As for User:JohnnyMrNinja's suggestion that "One ref does not count as significant coverage", I disagree. If the single reference is reasonably in-depth, then it is significant. --Eastmain (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonnotable manufactorer of cheap clarinets. One source may count as significant coverage, but in this case it does not. The source is mainly talking about the buisiness side of things and did not choose Andino because of anything notable about the brand itself. The company is clearly not discussed in detail, as the general notability guidelines recommend. Themfromspace (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply Priceless[edit]

Simply Priceless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod (by IP). These two have had maybe 4 or 5 matches together, so this is an incredible case of WP:CRYSTAL. Yes, they've won the Tag Championship, but that can easily be covered in two sentences on their individual articles. No third party references available to help establish notability. Nikki311 02:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Okiefromokla questions? 17:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow smile[edit]

Glasgow smile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability is unclear. Google hits for it gets only ~6000 hits. NuclearWarfare (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Notability is of course unclear--because of the total and complete lack of sources in the article. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is lacking sources but the sources are there... simple google search showed lots. Article just needs to be wiki'd. Also appears to satisfy WP:N. --Pmedema (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Pmedema. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 13:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not at all impressed by the Google search, which turns up references to the (!) "Glasgow Smile Clinic" (a dentist's office), a band called "The Glasgow Smile", a comment about the Scottish city's snobbery, and other things. The term has only two hits in Google Books; "Chelsea smile" gets 10 hits; but even those have multiple meanings. I'm gathering that this is a reference to Heath Ledger's Joker. Maybe this is why the article is unsourced. Mandsford (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase appears here and here, both reputable sources. I also know the phrase to be a well-known one in the UK, from personal experience. However, I'm not convinced of its notability - under which guidelines would it fall? Vizjim (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly notable enough. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The phrase has absolutely no notability. It is not encyclopedic as this maiming may go by any of many competing names and there is nothing to establish the particular acceptance of this title for it; in fact, outside of readers of The Guardian (which is listed above as a respectable source and is anything but a respectable source) and a handful of criminals, immigrants, and people who pay a great deal of attention to them living in Chelsea, I would suggest that no one much else has ever heard of the expression. That most of the content of the article is inherently non-encyclopedic content, i.e., which movies have something that might in any way have any makeup that makes an actor look like he has been at some time maimed in this way is icing on the cake for a swift deletion. DvonD (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Guardian is widely considered a respectable source, regardless of your own personal opinion. Also, just because you have never heard of something, doesn't mean it is not notable. This is a fairly well-known phrase, and just needs sourcing better. Definitely notable enough. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 14:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly notable enough for an article and is referenced many times in fiction. Google hits are not an accurate indication of notability and it is getting tiresome that so many people are using them to attempt to prove a point. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Could definitely use some expansion, though. Uvaduck (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rather well-known. Rather concerned at User:DvonD's seeming bad faith. I know it better as Chelsea Smile, but then I live in London. Rather an archaic form of mutilation. Brilliantine (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tan ǀ 39 13:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antigua Superyacht[edit]

Antigua Superyacht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article leaves no indication of how this event is notable, and from reading it, it does not seem to be notable. Althena (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tan ǀ 39 13:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monowai Energy[edit]

Monowai Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP entirely. While its Russian name might have more ghits, two non-wikipedia hits (none of which are independent), and no news hits doesn't go a long way towards establishing notability. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morrisonville Elementary School[edit]

Morrisonville Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable elementary school. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No assertion of notability and elementary schools are not inherently notable. I also have a WP:BLP concern with this listing (unsourced) of the faculty by name. JGHowes talk - 03:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable and little information. The Llama! (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - online sources do not prove notability (JGHowes: remember that "no assertion of notability" is not a reason for deletion).-Samuel Tan 03:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel Tan, no assertion of notability (or "importance") for an organization is indeed grounds (A7) for Speedy Deletion JGHowes talk - 14:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pffft. My bad. Forgot that A7 covers real organizations, not just real people. Still much to learn here thanks :) -Samuel Tan 02:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources that support establishing WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Elementary school articles are tolerated, to some extent, as part of a class lesson that will be over within a week (the usual amount of time that it takes to resolve a disputed discussion). This article seems to be the start of a directory of the school's staff, or perhaps a toehold on making a school webpage here, neither of which is permitted on Wikipedia. There's no reason, however, that the author cannot contribute to the article about Morrisonville, Illinois, where a listing of teachers would not genearlly be relevant. Mandsford (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to the appropriate school district per the usual policy on elementary schools. JuJube (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camrose cat killing[edit]

Camrose cat killing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sad story but blatantly violates WP:NOT#NEWS. Replace by a mention in the Camrose, Alberta and Microwave-related injury articles. Canjth (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very STRONG Keep Notable event. Our article covers something like a six month timespan from the event to trials, and there is probably more to come. NOT:NEWS refers to "routine news coverage" like sporting events. We are summarizing and recording an ongoing collection of events; each minor event has several news articles. It has five references over this time period. The event itself has created controversy for the act itself, and for the way Canadian media law treats minors suspected of crimes. That takes it beyond the simple tragedy story. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Very STRONG Delete The only controversy was that the media picked up on a couple of Facebook comments and turned this into something more than it actually was -- petty vandalism. If that meet notability, then so be it, but my vote remains. Carson (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While this may be true, the JonBenét Ramsey case has had more media hours than Michael Jackson has sold Thriller albums despite being fairly insignificant. No, it's not always what one would call fair or reasonable what the media does, but what the media does follow is then notable. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although there may be references in the media, this may indeed have to do with the fact that it is a current/ongoing event. Although at the moment the story may be of some interest, I find it highly unlikely that this notability will not be considered to be temporary once the event itself has concluded. Also, if this is indeed several minor events, each covered separately by the sources used, being summarized in a single article and treated as a single event, then wouldn't that make it a sort of synthesis of information? Calgary (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One might suggest here that notability does not diminish over time. Furthermore, ongoing events are not barred from Wikipedia. The notability of an subject does not depend on its lasting impact under WP:NOTABILITY. Contrary to this, the policy is worded as follows: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Though one may criticise the media for its judgment, its impact on the public is unquestionable. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with nominator on all points; this information can be put in other articles. It's a sad story, not notable enough for an article. Although the intent may be to prevent cruelty to animals, the author's focus on the incident is just as likely to inspire similarly cruel acts. Mandsford (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google news search shows a total of 30 articles related to this sick, sad, incident of cruelty, with many of them being rehashes of the same wire service coverage. That is not much compared to other "water cooler stories" which have been deleted on the ground that Wikipedia is not a crime log. This atrocity got a splash of coverage in the Canadian press, but did not lead to any new societal effects or laws, and was dealt with by the same means used aginst earlier young psychos who tortured animals. Things can be newsworthy without being encyclopedic, as expressed in the essay WP:NOTNEWS and the newer policy WP:NOT#NEWS. Edison (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Themfromspace (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. An animal cruelty case with a twist, but this is a current event with long term impact not proven. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete(G11 - blatant advertising) by Happyme22. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hotels and Accommodation[edit]

Paris Hotels and Accommodation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article of this name does not belong on WP. Article style is also inapprop. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as non-notable. Keeper ǀ 76 22:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CopyTrans[edit]

CopyTrans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable piece of freeware. External links are mere minor mentions. Nothing establishes that this software is unique, lots of users, or well, anything of importance. Miami33139 (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - Written as an ad that fails WP:RS and WP:N. The Washington Post references is a leadon that lays no mention to the software. --Pmedema (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing in the entire article but a brief description of the funtionality, and cannot possibly be an advert. The Washington Post article mentions 'CopyPod', which, if you read this particular Wiki article, is stated as being the former name of the program, and therefore, counts as a mention of this program in a reputable source, meaning the article passes WP:RS. It does not however, in its current state, pass WP:N. 24.192.149.38 (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 10:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it an advert? I can't see anything at all promotional in the article. Any deletion could be on grounds of non-notability, but not NPOV.78.148.71.130 (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Hashiraku[edit]

The result was Speedy Delete.. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hashiraku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod was contested. Based on [74] my searching I can't really find the relevance of this phrase, if any. I'm calling WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and also WP:NEO. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete This is poorly written and not notable. Miami33139 (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be mostly a Naruto term, at least as used in English. JJL (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sigh .... per WP:N and WP:RS. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, speedy delete A quick Google search reveals the truth of the matter -- the only real reference is from a forum. Also, the first result? AN OLDER VERSION OF THIS PAGE ADVERTISING A FORUM OF THE SAME NAME. Methinks the forum owner created the article after it was last deleted, trying to justify it as an actual word. Get this off my WP now. Carson (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Snow. Lacks any hint of passing WP:N and WP:RS Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a snowball fight! WP:RS, WP:N, etc...etc... Obliterate... Poof! --Pmedema (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Sheesh...--Boffob (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since my nomination, what exactly are these new additions to the article? Are they translation of some sort? If not, t hen I'd say that it borders WP:CSD#G1. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, strong, strong, strong, speedy, speedy, speedy and speedy delete What the hell is it! Sigh! Oh my goodness! Raymond "Giggs" Ko 10:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Fails notability. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I lol'd so hard, thank you Wikipedia ;) --John Smith don't sign my damn IP and please assume some good faith here
  • Delete: This refers to the creators clan for some Naruto-related game, see here: User:Mustafamust. Delete and warn user. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 09:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson Education Foundation[edit]

Thomas Jefferson Education Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability of this subject is not confirmed (and that first referenced source doesn't really meet WP:RS standards). Ecoleetage (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The second reference, however, seems entirely sufficient. Note that there is a group with a similar name in North Carolina. See http://www.taxexemptworld.com/organization.asp?tn=413937 , but it is affiliated with (or operates) a private K-12 school, Thomas Jefferson Classical Academy. --Eastmain (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The first reference is meant to be a footnote; it illustrates how ridiculous that particular diploma mill was. The second, actual reference is solid. --TrustTruth (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the only reference is a book that briefly mentions this topic. At this point, there are no reliable secondary sources that directly address the topic of this article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've made some improvements to the article, added a couple references, and clarified that an unrelated NC charter school's governing organization has the same name. If it does end up on the deletion block, please move a copy to my sandbox first. --TrustTruth (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , but rewrite as stated above to clarify the sourcing, & it would b preferable to have an additional RS. DGG (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bancroft School of Massage Therapy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bancroft School of Massage Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable massage school, strictly of local (not national or health industry) significance. Fails WP:ORG. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Long established trade school, affiliated with a regular institution of higher education, needs some sources added. I note that this is one of a group of articles originally speedied earlier today by a SPA who has done nothing else but try to delete articles on this general subject. DGG (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. I found a lot more at this Google News archive search but the free sample text shown for many of them didn't include the reference to the school. --Eastmain (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per refs added by Eastmain. Article meets WP:N and WP:V.--Sting Buzz Me... 00:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Center for Massage Therapy[edit]

Connecticut Center for Massage Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local massage school. Fails WP:ORG Ecoleetage (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Established and long established accredited trade school, needs some sources added though. I think schools auch as this should come under the general rule for including instittions of tertiary (higher) education, even if not degree-granting. I note that this is one of a group of articles originally speedied earlier today by a SPA who has done nothing else but try to delete articles on this general subject. DGG (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not to be disrespectful to my esteemed friend, but we are judging the merits of the article and not the motives of a mysterious third party who attempted to tag this for Speedy Delete. The problem remains that the school's notability requires confirmation. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think there needs to be a policy about postsecondary institutions that explicitly says that accreditation by a real accrediting body means notability. Until such a policy is adopted, the newspaper articles here, here and here may be useful. --Eastmain (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep after Benjiboi's rewrite.  Sandstein  18:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-heterosexual[edit]

Non-heterosexual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is unsourced and basically almost impossible to expand beyond a dictionary definition. (Non-heterosexuals are people who are not heterosexual) NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Over 600 books, [75] articles,[76] and over 3000 scholar hits,[77] suggests much more than a dictionary definition is possible. That no one has spent the time to fix and expand this isn't that big of a surprise. It seems to be more of an academic term that a media buzzworthy one. Banjeboi 00:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Delete or possibly redirect. It's widely used because it's basic English. This is a dicdef. Change to weak delete based on substantial improvements but I still don't clearly see refs. about, rather than merely using, the term. JJL (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yes, there were some there but I've added a few more and reworked the lede a bit. Does this seem to cover this concern? Banjeboi 01:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or possibly merge to LGTB or Queer, if not Delete Change to Keep after re-write, the article is now properly sourced and expands beyond a mere dictionary definition, actually discussing the term. Worth expanding further, however, a merge still might be the best option. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Queer. Undeath (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:NAD. There are many google scholar hits for "non-human", "non-male", and "non-blonde", but it does not warrant us making articles that say "non-humans are all beings that are not human", "non-male are all humans who don't identify as male", or "non-blondes refer to all people who are not blonde", becase Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If the author wishes to categorize non-heterosexuals into a group for easy references, then he should create a category instead.-Samuel Tan 03:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - retracting strong delete because it has been shown that there are sources that make the subject more than analogous to a dictionary entry. I'm not familiar enough with the articles on sexuality to give a comment on a possible merger, though... -Samuel Tan 14:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LGBT. 'Queer' is something a little different to LGBT, but non-heterosexual is synonymous. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think I've addressed this in the article but LGBT, queer and non-heterosexual all seem to mean different things - although some certianly use them interchangably. Banjeboi 13:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Would be keep, except that this isn't an identifying term, simply an occasionally-used neologism to describe anyone who isn't straight. No one would identify themselves as "non-hetrosexual", since there are more specific terms out there. This article will not grow. Carson (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think I've addressed this in the article, it doesn't seem to be a neologism, at least not any more. Banjeboi 13:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete unless as it seems more sufficiently referenced (although there are now tonal things that I'd like to see changed those are more appropriately discussed on the articles talkpage). Please do not redirect to "queer" or "LBGT" as the term if reasonably verified would apply to "asexuals"(as mentioned in the article) and I'm sure there are others that aren't "hetero" but, aren't "homo" or "bi" either (the rare person that is only attracted to other species for instance). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to LGBT variants section. Keep I'm impressed with the way this article has been rescued by Benjiboi. Themfromspace (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Enough sources provided above which establish notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. FYI, The sexualities template has two references on it, which I think should be removed, and I have left a note on that template's talk page regarding the matter. Just a note when you see a couple odd items in the references. Banjeboi 10:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Article rewritten. Banjeboi 13:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per WP:HEY. The article is impeccably referenced, and the notability of the subject is beyond all reasonable doubt. The article should probably be merged to one of its synonyms, but that is outside the purview of Articles for Deletion. Skomorokh 16:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, merge is a possible outcome of an AfD, and there is at least one AfD in progress which is to confirm a disputed merge. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am aware of, and hostile to, the practice, thanks. Skomorokh 17:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to (or with, if you want to claim this term is better known than LGBT) LGBT#Variants. The references are OK, but many of them would fit just as well there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LGBT. Canjth (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can understand why editors !voted to redirect previous versions of the article, but how on earth can you justify removing from the encyclopedia extensive, thoroughly referenced content on an incontrovertibly notable topic?! Skomorokh 17:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which of those references is about non-homosexuality, as opposed to just using that term and then focusing on certain things that aren't heterosexual? I got 675 Google Book hits [78] on non-innovative and 97 hits [79] non-elephant. Are those notable terms, or just English constructions? I'm not convinced that there is a body of work about non-homosexuality in and of itself, studied by that name, as opposed books on various ways of not being heterosexual, described as 'non-homosexuality'. Finding a Journal of Non-Homosexuality Studies would be much more convincing than many refs. on lesbianism, and bisexualism, etc. JJL (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You misunderstand; I'm not arguing that the subject (i.e. the concept, not the term) is independently notable, but that the material in the article is well-sourced and relevant, wherever it ends up. To redirect rather than merge would be to lose all the quality content. Sincerely, Skomorokh 19:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Non-heterosexual is not the same as LGBT or queer, I think the article has made that clear but certainly could use more clarity if not. Banjeboi 21:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this discusses the concept, not merely defines it. DGG (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article reads like a cross between a definition and an overview of all non-hetero behaviors, with a bit of righteous jsutification in there. The overview parts as so obvious as to be common sense, and are covered in the relevant articles. Redirecting will no doubt result inm an edit war about which non-hetero article it should point to. if it absolutely must redirect, then to Human Sexuality. Given the breadth of that article, most people searchign for this odd phrase will find what they need there. ThuranX (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. That the article about a term includes a term's definition seems fine, could you elaborate what "non-hetero behaviors" are discussed or even overviewed? Also I'm interested in correcting any "righteous justification" - frankly I was using what the sources stated so maybe quoting them would be better? The term's acceptance and widespread use in academia would suggest it be directed to the present article. Banjeboi 00:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Benjiboi has made huge improvements to this article, and it's now clearly notable. Early votes should be ignored unless reaffirmed, because they aren't commenting on anything like the current article. LWizard @ 03:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The hell they shouldn't. What kind of nonsense is that? editor input shouldn't count unless it matches your POV? Editor comments and arguments count fully, there's no need for constant monitoring of every place an editor gives input, nothign would be achieved that way. ThuranX (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The third way: As a closer I personally pay attention to the order of the comments, e.g. if the first five all say "no sources" and then the sixth says "sources added." But I really don't need someone to tell me to consider this... - brenneman 04:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I always watch the page and follow the ensuing discussion, but if sources added don't change my opinion, I don't always re-post my vote. I'd hate to think I was doing that and being ignored! JJL (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually LizardWizard is correct. This is a debate, and that means a continued discussion and interchange of arguments as the debate progresses and dynamically changes. Otherwise, the !votes are not much more than drive by votes. There is precedent to discount !votes that are clearly ignoring the improvements that address the nomination rationale. WP:AFD states: If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin. If someone !votes in an AfD, they have a ethical responsibility to follow up, since it's not a static votes for deletion process. Several editors have changed their position due to the massive improvements, and that's very commendable. — Becksguy (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as verifiable. user:Everyme 13:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, all the deletes are based on personal dislikes.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nonsense, and even if it were true (which it isn't), it's not the form any argument should ever take in any discussion. user:Everyme 10:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fine, keep because it is well referenced, has just as much as the Sexual orientation article. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. user:Everyme 11:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so merge it there, then. (This is a moderately serious suggestion, in spite of the rest of this subthread.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, then while were at it, lets merge the United States, Mexico, and all the countries on the earth into one article too. And hey, why stop there, lets merge all the articles on wikipedia into on super article.... cause based on your logic, that seems where you want to go with it. Merging articles is one of the worst things you can do to a great article. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. It makes as much sense as having a Non-homosexuals article. Skoojal (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But does it? In our normative culture, heterosexuality is seen and propagated as the "normal", and sadly often enough as the "correct" orientation. It's therefore more legitimate than with any other orientation, and that's also why it is very frequently done, to analyse and discuss any orientation which derivates from this "cultural norm". So it makes a lot more sense than a "Non-homosexuals" article. user:Everyme 11:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Non-homosexual" is a bit more borderline as is "non-bisexual" although both might be valid subheadings here. Of all the terms Non-heterosexual seems to have the most usage, I stopped at 30-40 books but there were dozens more that also addressed this material. Non-homosexual and non-bisexual both had mentions but they were definitely used far less although in similar contexts of explaning one group verses all others outside the group. Banjeboi 00:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the reasons presented in the original nomination have been addressed and are no longer valid. The current version of the article appears thoroughly sourced and fully meeting WP:V and WP:N. It is a sociological concept (although perhaps not widely in use as other concepts) and not simply a "dictionary definition" as many of the delete opinions claim.-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Note that the article has been significantly expanded since this article was nominated for deletion, with sources added. The term is not strictly equivalent to LGBT - in that that includes transgender, but does not include sexualities other than bi/gay. Mdwh (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep due to the massive improvements by Benjiboi that I believe have more than adequately addressed the nomination rationale. Here is the article when it was nominated for AfD (32 words), and here is the article now (707 words). It has 29 references, many of them scholarly ones, and is now very clearly much more than just a definition. Over 600 books, articles, and over 3000 scholar hits, as indicated by Benjiboi. This is one of the best examples for WP:HEY I have seen. — Becksguy (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Queer or LGBT. Yes, you will see this term used, because it is the correct term for people who are not heterosexual. That does not mean that non-heterosexuality is on its own a notable phenomenon. According to this article, it's not even trying to talk about people who aren't heterosexual: "Non-heterosexual is also used to encompass transgender and intersex people, although these are gender identities rather than sexual identities they are a part of the LGBT and queer umbrella communities." --Alynna (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. As stated in the article, and above, this term is distinct from and different than both LGBT and queer and it came into use to replace those terms and others specifically to address those distinctions. Banjeboi 18:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Benjiboi. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Finger Lakes School of Massage[edit]

Finger Lakes School of Massage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local massage school, fails WP:ORG. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep long established (17 years) and accredited trade school, that should fall under the general practice of including institutions of higher education, even in applied subjects. Real sources are needed, of course. I note that this is one of a group of articles originally speedied earlier today by a SPA who has done nothing else but try to delete articles on this general subject. DGG (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not to be disrespectful to my esteemed friend, but we are judging the merits of the article and not the motives of a mysterious third party who attempted to tag this for Speedy Delete. The problem remains that the school's notability requires confirmation. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The references at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22Finger+Lakes+School+of+Massage%22&ie=UTF-8 may be helpful in establishing notability. --Eastmain (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment Actually, a lot of the articles cited in that search appear to be wedding announcements! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
but not the following:[80] (Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY), a full -page article about them, [81] & [82] same paper), &[83] from the NYT, in which their insructors (in the plural) are quoted as representatives of the art, among others. It does seem to be a major school in the field. It is,additionally, associated with the Ginger Lakes Community College, a degree-granting school. I consider such association to lend considerable indication of genuine higher educational status--I was quite relieved to see it, actually, along with some genuine third party references. DGG (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
note: I have moved the article to the correct title according to its Web page Finger Lakes School of Massage DGG (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tan ǀ 39 13:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagman[edit]

Flagman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete there are ghits for this brand of vodka but a paucity of reliable sources to show notability... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete/redirect. Tan ǀ 39 23:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Kaye[edit]

Nikki Kaye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO which states that candidates for political office are not notable. Insufficient other grounds for notability (athletics achievements are only at a regional level). Notwithstanding WP:OTHER, neutrality requires that we treat candidates in this election consistently: Incumbents or past incumbets have articles, and those who fail notability are redirected to Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2008 by electorate dramatic (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested by dramatic. This has the advantage that if she wins the seat (which appears unlikely given the current majority) we have a basic article ready to go.-gadfium 22:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. the only link to NK is from the page we're talking about anyway, and this is the kind of thing we need to crack down on. let's not make wikipedia carry the can because party people think they're important or want a free ad. not in an election year. this is the test case. Plan 8 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Herald article goes some way towards evidence of notability, but as a profile of a political candidate about to compete it seems transitional, and more indicative of the notability of the seat and the competition for it than this particular candidate. It says nothing of interest about her except that she's running, which isn't evidence of notability. Can't find any other articles on Google or GNews. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's received pretty extensive coverage in The New Zealand Herald, particularly in an article from May 4, 2008 titled "Central battle." She's also been covered in The National Business Review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminx (talk • contribs) 05:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think these articles are more indicative of the notability of the seat she's running for than herself. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Nevertheless, the articles show that Kaye has achieved "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," as the articles are about her, and not about the seat, so she meets the general notability guidelines, WP:POLITICIAN aside. Benjaminx (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The coverage doesn't seem that significant to me. It's very fluffy, there's nothing in it that indicates she's notable except as a political candidate, and it seems like passing news. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. It doesn't matter if the coverage focusses on her rather than the seat, she's only getting the coverage because she's a candidate. Notability is not temporary, and if she loses, she will not be notable. --Helenalex (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That guideline states that "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic." So once notable, always notable. Benjaminx (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it's an article about a candidate for parliament. three of these have already been deleted this week. why is this different? because the candidate for auckland central gets mentioned in the main auckland daily? that's pretty sketchy reasoning. Primal (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Exactly. It's an article about her candidacy, and candidacy is not notable. It's one of those exceptions cases where unreasoned application of the GNG is inappropriate. WP:Common sense applies here. Ryan Paddy (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's an article about her, and she's notable because she's running for office. She's clearly notable right now, and the only argument for deletion is that she won't be notable at some time in the future, but like I said, Notability is not temporary. Benjaminx (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom's Food Market[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tom's Food Market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable grocery chain with only five stores. One source is broken, the other is local coverage. Only sources I could find dealt with the opening of a new store, or with other similar trivial local coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 18:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hammer. The key is whether this is a notable chain of supermarkets, and even within Michigan, I don't think that the five stores would be. Shoppers in Traverse City, Michigan, will not base their grocery choices on Wikipedia in any event. Mandsford (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article makes no assertion of notability. Cmadler (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete . lifebaka (talk - contribs) 23:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10 Days in May Tour[edit]

10 Days in May Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. No reliability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Toodiesel (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R.E.M. at Cologne Cathedral[edit]

R.E.M. at Cologne Cathedral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One concert? Not notable. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete as indiscriminate. It's not as if the concert itself was in any way notable. I don't think it is in WP's interests to have articles of the infinite permutations of band + venue. It will be never ending. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, not notable in any way, I'm tired of having random articles created like this. Not every concert ever given is important! Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Tan ǀ 39 13:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lines[edit]

The Lines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Insufficient inline cites and references means this is unreliable. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Tan ǀ 39 13:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sorry Kisses[edit]

The Sorry Kisses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Hard Drive (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable band. Label is redlinked. No inline cites or references means zero reliability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I believe Hayley Hutchinson's notability is amply demonstrated by the article I have just created about her, so this band contains a notable solo artist plus a member of another notable band, so easily passes WP:MUSIC.--Michig (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no clear consensus, defaulting to keep. Subject might meet WP:MUSIC - did he WRITE the solo and get credit for writing? Not clear. Safest thing is to keep.. Tan ǀ 39 20:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Grant[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lloyd Grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Fancruft relating to Metallica. Insufficient inline cites and reliability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Listed on a Metallica album material as a one-time member of the band. Meets WP:Music. Covered in a published book considered a highly reliablee source on the subject. A great small article. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Throw Yourself Away[edit]

Throw Yourself Away (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Never released as single therefore never charted. Insignificant media coverage. No references or inline cites means zero reliability. Fancruft. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really an argument. Is that importance amongst Nickelback fans? I'm sure a lot of Metallica songs are important to Metallica fans. How does this provide notability? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree with Esradekan and Tenacious D Fan. Possibly place some details in album article? Andre666 (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to album. Article contents will be available in the redirect's page history, per GFDL, and if the song is ever notable as a standalone article. Keeper ǀ 76 19:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where Do I Hide[edit]

Where Do I Hide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Never released as single therefore never charted. Insignificant media coverage. No references or inline cites means zero reliability. Fancruft. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the album as a plausible search term. -- saberwyn 01:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Saberwyn. David in DC (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable, not encyclopedic (I am original author) Andre666 (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selangor Triple Towers[edit]

Selangor Triple Towers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article on a non notable proposed building where both external links are dead and even if their were the article doesn't assert it would be a notbale project anyways, not verified not notable, no sources, speedy delete please Myheartinchile (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - other than a single link from a questionable source in the article, there is little else to document the building/planning of this structure. While its possible for an unbuilt structure to warrant an article, for this to get past WP:CRYSTAL there would need to be legit sourcing documenting the buildings notability and something more to give credit to the supposed planning stage. Under 300 google hits, any of which appear relevant are actually non-sense "forum" links and the like. Possibly notable in the future if it gets built or if there is non-trivial coverage on its productionm, but not at this time. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IRK!Leave me a note or two 15:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Collection (Trisha Yearwood album)[edit]

The Collection (Trisha Yearwood album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable budget oriented compilation. No third-party sources, no reviews. This is just two of her previous albums in a new box; Madacy has plenty of other compilations that consist of the same thing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 15:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Holmes (motocross)[edit]

Michael Holmes (motocross) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable purported motocross rider. While sources are tough to pore over, it looks as if almost none at all outside of Wiki mirrors exist for Mr. Holmes, let alone reliable ones, and even applying WP:ATHLETE to this article, the article never alleges that he competed beyond amateur county competitions. Article is the sole Wikipedia activity of User:Bchillin54, its creator. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V.  RGTraynor  14:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage from independent reliable sources (after getting him confused with a skydiver for a while). Nothing to suggest that this would pass WP:ATHLETE guidelines. Also appears to be an autobiography judging from the intimate details provided.--BelovedFreak 15:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources to estblish notability. Based on the article text, he didn't really make the step up to competing in the top level of his sport. -- Whpq (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As said above, notability not established per limited coverage in reliable sources. —97198 talk 06:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above arguments about lack of notability. -- Quartermaster (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna: Music Video Production Credits[edit]

Madonna: Music Video Production Credits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Any information should already be in respective song articles. Compendium is not required. Zero sources = zero reliability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Tell Me Promo Tour[edit]

Don't Tell Me Promo Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Two tour dates? Not notable. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "promo" says it all. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep due to the Internet record. 'largest webcast of all time' on Google brought up the included reference as the 3rd hit, with the first two hits being older news items or unsupported self-promotion. That could be sufficient evidence of notability. Otherwise, I believe "promo tours" should usually be detailed in the respective album article. -Verdatum (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this two day tour falls far short of notability. Furthermore no claim to be notable is made --T-rex 00:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting again. AfD template was removed from article by anon IP 8 days ago. Chick Bowen 02:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tan ǀ 39 00:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Macedonian Patriotic Songs[edit]

List of Macedonian Patriotic Songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The individual songs may be notable but the list incorporating these songs is not. The songs seems to have been hand picked by the author of the article with no verifiable or notable connection to each other. May not be appropriate per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone_lists)#Appropriate topics for lists and per WP:NOTDIR. If the author of the article is the one composing the list based on each song's individual content rather than an existing publication with such a list, it would also be a breach of WP:SYNTH since the author is reaching a conclusion that is not backed up by any sources rather the author comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that this has all the makings of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. They might attempt creating a category. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge this list into Music of the Republic of Macedonia and source the section or entries properly. The comment by Ron B. above: we have no idea that these are patriotic songs instead of just songs about a region. Patriotic songs should bring forth and build feelings of national pride and are used to assert nationalism. Descriptive songs about a beautiful homeland are just that -- descriptive songs. Nice to sing, but not significant. is problematic in this discussion. Is this a reliable, sourced definition of patriotic songs or just Ron's POV. I would consider America The Beautiful a patriotic song, but I guess Ron wouldn't.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larron Tate[edit]

Larron Tate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns. Based on the article, and their record at IMDB, I'm not sure they pass WP:N. rootology (T) 13:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN. He's only appeared in very minor roles in a few films and one-episode TV stints. —97198 talk 06:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berenice Almaguer[edit]

Berenice Almaguer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actress, does not meet any of the 3 notability criteria set out in WP:ENTERTAINER. Google search provides no independent reliable sources to verify any presumed notability. IMDB entry lists only two appearances in films, one of them being a 10 minute short film. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tan ǀ 39 00:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Navarro[edit]

Jimmy Navarro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns. Based on the article, and their record at IMDB, I'm not sure they pass WP:N. rootology (T) 13:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tan ǀ 39 00:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Liscinski[edit]

Theodore Liscinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns. Based on the article, and their record at IMDB, I'm not sure they pass WP:N. rootology (T) 13:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Marie Gordon[edit]

Donna Marie Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns. Based on the article, and their record at IMDB, I'm not sure they pass WP:N. rootology (T) 13:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article does not clear the wikipedia notability criteria then it can be Deleted. Edeskonline (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus - default keep. The issue of merging can and should be discussed on the article's talk page among involved editors. However, I'm not ready to declare that the article should be merged based on any consensus formed in this discussion. On a side note, I'm moving the page to "Music of Phish". Okiefromokla questions? 16:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phish and their music[edit]

Phish and their music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is poorly cited and unreliable. Songwriting information should be merged to relevant albums. Roles in songwriting should be merged to relevant artist articles. Phish is a musical group, therefore the music of Phish is discussed on the main article. I don't think a distinct article with vague and unreliable assertions is needed. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this was done to remove "cruft", then this article should be removed as it is "cruft". Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how that would be for the overall benefit of the project. — MusicMaker5376 15:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Phish is a band, right? So surely the article Phish is about Phish, and their music. There is absolutely no reason to have this content fork. The way to keep cruft to a minimum is to delete it, not to create a separate article for it.--BelovedFreak 15:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should take a look at Phish before you guess its content. — MusicMaker5376 16:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please try and assume good faith here. I did look at both articles, that was the first thing I did. As far as I can tell, having read it, Phish is about Phish, and it's about their music. Just because I disagree with you, please don't take it personally.--BelovedFreak 02:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phish#Music is a WP:SUMMARY of this WP:SPINOUT article. That is the reason for the redundancy, which is entirely appropriate. Naturally, your comment below about the combined article size is a valid counter. Due to WP:SIZE such a spinout may not be appropriate. The way to keep OR to a minimum is to remove the offending content and merging the little bit that remains, not to remove the entire article and history. -Verdatum (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Completely appropriate subarticle per WP:SPINOUT, though it should be given a less-informal title (Music of Phish?), and it is in urgent need of sourcing. The subject, however, is completely legitimate: an article detailing the musical style of Phish, its evolution, and its influences. Not "cruft" in the least, though at the present time it might have a fair amount of OR.--Father Goose (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pretty standard practice to break lengthy sections out of articles. There are many articles similar to this one. This one just needs better TLC. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I understand spinout articles, but the two articles put together are only about 45K. --BelovedFreak 02:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article has been in one of my sandboxes for about a year, waiting to be improved to be merged back into the main article. Keep the article if only to keep the attribution for what eventually goes back into the main article. — MusicMaker5376 03:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't the references be kept in your sandbox too?--BelovedFreak 19:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe in this context, attribution refers to "who edited what". That information is not carried over when manually copied to/from the user-space. However, merging leaves the edit history in tact, as required by the GFDL. -Verdatum (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and let the Phish editors decide whether to merge back in. The subject material is definitely notable and important. Whether per WP:Summary style it's best dealt with as a subarticle, or completely incorporated in the main article, is an editorial decision that those who write and edit the Phish articles should make, not drive-by commenters at AfD who don't have as much expertise in the subject matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This stuff should be covered on the Phish article or on the members' respective pages. The title is also arby. Why Phish and their music? Does that not imply this is an article on Phish (the band) and the band's music. There is no requirement for this extra page, and it strikes me as fan indulgence. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - So, some editors are creating a GA (which is good) and rather than delete the stuff that doesn't belong, they create an article to contain this. This smells like a fork. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Spinoff or not, it doesn't work as a stand-alone article. Fits the bill for Original Content and Indiscriminate information, due to lack of citation. Wikipedia is not for a subjective analysis of a band's "style", at least not outside of the band's article. Can you say, with good conscious, that this article exists solely to keep the main page from filling up, or simply because it is just too much content on too specific of a topic. Condense this down into the main ideas, find some citations, and merge back into the main Phish article under a new section. Carson (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge following cleanup. If it was just an issue of notability, the article should be kept per WP:NNC. But as Carson points out, it's largely original research that could and should be trimmed. It appears the result would be only few sentences appropriate for WP, making a merge of this WP:SPINOUT article prudent. -Verdatum (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep due to the single good reference. Trim to what is supported by the reference, or add more sources. Is not a fork, but a spinout. At worst, redirect back to Phish. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.music.phish[edit]

Rec.music.phish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. No inline cites. No reliability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly nn Mayalld (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would submit that USENET newsgroups are inherently non-notable. DarkAudit (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think that Usenet newsgroups are inherently non-notable, but they should have to establish notability on the same principles as web content per WP:WEB. This article doesn't do so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have over 30 articles on Usenet newsgroups now, see Category:Newsgroups. Some like Rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated are clearly warranted, some like Talk.bizarre probably are on subcultural grounds. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply 30 out over 100,000. And many of those are stubs reading x is a USENET newsgroup for the discussion of y. No real assertions of notability or any third party sources. DarkAudit (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additional Using WP:WEB in the absence of established standards for USENET groups, this article does not pass muster. Most of the references are the group itself, which does not pass WP:RS as not independent of the subject. Google Groups is merely Google's USENET feed in web form. USENET groups are the predecessors to today's web forums, and by and large those sites do not pass WP:WEB. There's nothing here to show that this group is any more notable than your average web forum, longevity notwithstanding. DarkAudit (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Article text added to Talk:Ben & Jerry's flavors.. Tan ǀ 39 01:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phish Food[edit]

Phish Food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Verging on fancruft. No inline cites or references. Unreliable. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just want to point out that this article is almost three years old. — MusicMaker5376 03:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the only other B&J's Ice Cream Flavor with an article is Cherry Garcia. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chubby Hubby (Ben & Jerry's flavor) exists, too. — MusicMaker5376 14:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well it wasn't linked in the Ben & Jerry's flavors article. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook
Why would Cherry Garcia warrant an article and Phish Food not? (Sorry about that horrendous syntax!) — MusicMaker5376 16:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phish Tickets By Mail[edit]

Phish Tickets By Mail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Verging on fancruft. Any useful information can be merged into Phish tours. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Phish tours. The material is a useful part of describing the Phish touring culture, but it would be better as a section there rather than being a standalone article. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge; it's just plain silly to have an article dedicated to the mail ordering of tickets. It should at least be renamed to "Sale of Phish Tickets" and be expanded to cover all forms of ticket sale rather than just mail order. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - to Phish tours. Delete would be fine as an alternative, but this fails WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't believe this content is even worth merging. I wouldn't cry if resulted in merge to Phish tours. No establishment of notability through stats or independent resources. -Verdatum (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge first paragraph and delete rest Brilliantine (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is complicated, see WP:MAD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Phish tours. Okiefromokla questions? 16:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phish and their musical costumes[edit]

Phish and their musical costumes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Anything of use can be merged into Phish tours. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge: I don't see any reason to delete the article and lose its contents forever, but I don't see that this deserves its own article, and considering the creator of the article voted merge, I believe that merge is the perfect vote in this situation. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus appears to be keep. Nominator may wish to note google news hits, as well, which appears to have multiple non-trivial mentions: [88]. Nonadmin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kermit the Hermit[edit]

Kermit the Hermit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable book. The author is notable; but probably not so as to meet the criterea "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." akaDruid (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Google has a scan of the book, and although it might not be as notable as 101 Dalmations, it obviously exists as a published book by a famous author and has enough hits, imo, to merit an article. I retract my vote if article does not improve from its current state within the next six months.
  • Comment Google Book Search scans whatever it can get hold of, with few limitations, sometimes even without respect to copyright. The presence of a book there means no more than finding it in Amazon: it exists, and nothing more. They make no claim whatever to scan only the important.DGG (talk)
  • Keep That said, the book is notable, as shown by its presence in 1247 libraries according to worldCat. [89] Since it was published in 1980, when worldCat was not yet comprehensive, and since older childrens' books that are no longer popular are not even retained by most smaller public libraries, this is very clear evidence of notability. There will certainly be reviews, which should be found and added. I know by long professional experience people dont like to use library catalogs, but in trying to find information about an article actually on a particular book, then at least it can be a useful way to start. DGG (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep None of you have ever read Kermit the Hermit? I loved that book when I was a kid... 45,000 hits on Google, 1,000 libraries, etc. Bill Peet is also a very notable children's author. Amazon has part of the Kirkus Review of this book. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - current article is poorly written, but the book is notable --T-rex 00:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Okiefromokla questions? 05:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insert (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Insert (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article concerns a group who has since split, and never signed to a label. Also, the group's article has been deleted once before. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Link to page is Insert (band) - afd nomination needs fixing. Band name is <Insert>. Which doesn't make it useful to search for! Tend to agree with delete but don't have time to check properly. -Hunting dog (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I typically attempt searches with the band's name along with the lead singer's name. So I checked Google News archives, and also a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, and could find no sources that discuss this band. Delete, if no sources are forthcoming, as this band does not otherwise appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. DigitalC (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. PKT 01:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neff-U[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Neff-U (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC and is not backed by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to the appropriate album articles. Someone with interest/knowledge of the subject should do this, I won't be. Keeper ǀ 76 17:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers Under the Bridge[edit]

Brothers Under the Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Don't get me wrong, I love the music of Bruce Springsteen, but this album track is not one of his notable songs, as it was never released as a single, didn't chart, has not received any specific coverage in its own right, etc. For the same reason I am also nominating Part Man, Part Monkey (another B-side/album track) and Talk to Me (Bruce Springsteen song) (not even released by Springsteen, only released as a non-notable album track by another artist) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The meisner technique school of acting[edit]

The meisner technique school of acting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a 'school' (drama workshop) that teaches the meisner technique. If it should be kept at all, it should be moved to Meisner technique. Carbonrodney (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the links that are given at the bottom of the article do not establish notability. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by your notability policy. There seems to be a lot of gray area covered, but not much black and white. What makes this school any different from The Sanford Meisner Center for the Arts. The Meisner Technique School of Acting is a reputable school, with a reputable director who also happens to be a legitimate actor and a disciple of Sanford Meisner. --Jmjrrtt (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check our notability policy here: Wikipedia:NOTABLE. Black and white things usually won't have pages dedicated to them. For example the Holocaust is definitely noteworthy, whereas my empty cup of coffee right here is not noteworthy. Given that most of the stuff in between is grey, we need a policy to sort the blackish grey from the whiteish grey, to keep with your analogy.

I'm sure you are a very reputable teacher. And as far as I know your acting classes are excellent, but the school is not notable enough for Wikipedia. The reason for this policy is Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your business, and that is a commonplace abuse that detracts from many Wikipedians' ability to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. --Carbonrodney (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The school itself is not independently notable. The technique and the person are. DGG (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tan ǀ 39 14:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Powerdasher[edit]

Powerdasher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable character from Transformers toy line, contested prod Somno (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete - request by author. PhilKnight (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kami Naman[edit]

Kami Naman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tagged for notability for a month. Bringing here for consensus; neutral !vote from me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 03:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Has sources and appears to be a decent show in the Phillippines. Undeath (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to delete this article. I will make a better one in the future. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caerlcionne (talk • contribs) 08:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All aired television shows are kept by default, including from the Philippines' so-called "minor" television stations like UNTV. Starczamora (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InteLib (software library)[edit]

InteLib (software library) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable programming library. Article probably created by the inventor, and all references are to his own works. Prod contested by author. BradV 16:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IRK!Leave me a note or two 03:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sean Whitton / 12:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this already. It seriously lacks secondary sourcing independent of the subjects origin and fails general notability(all five bullet points). Do we really need to see this relisted a fifth time? Synergy 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Synergy. There is no assertation of notability, nor are there any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 18:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. — Scientizzle 15:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

States of Melba[edit]

States of Melba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An ultimately non-notable band whose article has very few verifiable, reliable sources. Their website is as stagnant as the article, with nothing after 2008-02-08. Their debut album was the only thing they ever did. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 02:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of hurricanes in the Caribbean[edit]

History of hurricanes in the Caribbean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article, originally much longer, has now been reduced to a dab. It is largely orphaned, and serves very little purpose, due to the frequency of hurricanes in the Caribbean. Since another user switched it to AFD class, I took the initiative to propose this deletion. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete At the stage that it's in, it serves no purpose and could probably be CSD A3'd. However, looking through the page history, it at one point was a fairly long list, albeit unreferenced and poorly written, of hurricanes in the Carribbean. As I don't understand why it was converted into a useless dab, I don't see why we can't just revert to the last revision when it was actually an article. Since even then it would be a mess, I'm in favor of deleting or redirecting to List of Atlantic hurricanes, at least until somebody wants to rewrite it as List of Caribbean hurricanes. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The value of a potential merge can be discussed further on the article's talk page. Shereth 21:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shivom Tirth[edit]

Shivom Tirth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Religious leader that is not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few books (by him , not about him), apart from that nothing that meets notability. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC) criteria.[reply]
  • keep a few seems to = several dozen, but there is no clear way we can tell their importance for lack of sources. This is an unfortunate limitation of cultural bias in available material. I said keep on the basis that his ashram does publish a magazine with an ISSN [91], and at least 23 of his books (counting both English and Hindi editions) are in scattered US research libraries, both showing some degree of grounding.DGG (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I agree that he wrote lots of books. These books however are not the subject of any scholarly reviews. I do not see any cultural bias here - as this is a strong statement, could you explain further? Aside from writing books, there are no claims to notability, nor reliable sources to back up these claims. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or merge with his guru Swami Vishnu Tirth who seems to have an established page. Dakinijones (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant points with his guru's article. --Shruti14 t c s 03:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG or Merge with his guru. He is mentioned, unfortunately on the restricted page 165 in this scholarly work Gurus in America, in the chapter on The Perfectibility of Perfection, Siddha Yoga as a Global Movement. Plenty of name variants Shivom, Sivom, Tirth(a) even Shiv Omtirth. He seems to have published works that are cited often enough, e.g. one by his guru.John Z (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all.  Sandstein  18:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posturology[edit]

Posturology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-extant branch of medical science. Article perpetuates the views of one particular individual, and cites his own work. Delete please. JFW | T@lk 00:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we vote simultaneously about postural disorder by the same author and with the same content problems? JFW | T@lk 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Postural disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Motor disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Appears to be an extremely obscure branch of alternative medicine. NOTE - most of the articles in Google scholar refer to an attempt to develop a way to use the posture of patients during psychoanalysis "Analytic posturology", which is unrelated to the subject of this particular article. In the seven PubMed hits on this subject only PMID 15844769 seems a good source, but I think this paper might be enough to establish notability. I'd redirect all the subsiduary articles to posturology and then cut to a stub to reflect what is in the reliable sources on the subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am pretty sure that seven PubMed articles are insufficient to establish notability. JFW | T@lk 10:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I'm unsure on notability myself. It certainly isn't a hoax, but as the author themselves says, this is not a accepted part of medicine. At present the article does not establish notability, and uses self-published sources, so I'm leaning towards delete, unless this is completely rewritten with better sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all Keep and heavily rewrite. It looks a lot like Feldenkrais Method except where Feldenkrais practitioners deliberately ignore the underlying causes of poor posture and/or movement, these practitioners seem to claim that real benefits cannot be obtained without knowing exactly the underlying causes. It's "treat the symptom" vs "find the cure". Some people who do this stuff call it "movement analysis" and "movement therapy", etc. --Una Smith (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll go with Tim Vicker's plan. See also the many links on Human position. --Una Smith (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think there are two things going on here.
  1. Promotion of the claim that posturology refers to a specific school of thought, the thought as yet unpublished. This is original research and does not belong on Wikipedia.
  2. Use of the term "posturology" in the (French and Italian) medical literature. This term may qualify as a neologism, in which case it may yet fail the test for inclusion in Wiktionary.
On both counts, the material doesn't belong here, yet. --Una Smith (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all posture related articles from paoloplatania:I legitimate these article and the author as:
- I am neutral concerning this issue
- The aim to guide the development of posturology concept under wikipedia are scientific, clear and pursued according to wikipedia wikipedia approach
- I added a single bibliographic citation to my material in order not to use ambiguous external link to a bibliographic gatherer nor to burden with the complete cited bibliograpic source list
- if less self-promoting suspect, I gladly substitute:
1) Paolo Platania (2008). Evidence of vagal mediated relationship between tongue-motor-insufficiency and postural-disorders: craniocervical-extension spasm induced by upper-airway-patency-maintenance-reflex elicited by augmented airflow resistance owed to neurogenic tongue weakness, a case study. Posture, etiology of a syndrome
with complete list:
1) Mateika JH, Millrood DL, Kim J, Rodriguez HP, Samara GJ. (1999): Response of human tongue protrudor and retractors to hypoxia and hypercapnia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 160:1976-82
2) Megirian D, Hinrichsen CF, Sherrey JH. (1985): Respiratory roles of genioglossus, sternothyroid, and sternohyoid muscles during sleep. Exp Neurol. 90:118-28
3) Parisi RA, Neubauer JA, Frank MM, Edelman NH, Santiago TV. (1987): Correlation between genioglossal and diaphragmatic responses to hypercapnia during sleep. Am Rev Respir Dis. 135:378-82
4) Kuna ST, Smickley J. (1988): Response of genioglossus muscle activity to nasal airway occlusion in normal sleeping adults. J Appl Physiol. 64:347-53
5) Leiter JC, Daubenspeck JA. (1990): Selective reflex activation of the genioglossus in humans. J Appl Physiol. 68:2581-7
6) M. Murat Özbek, Keisuke Miyamoto, Alan A. Lowe, John A. Fleetham. (1998): Natural head posture, upper airway morphology and obstructive sleep apnoea severity in adults. European Journal of Orthodontics 20:133–143
7) Fregosi RF, Fuller DD. (1997): Respiratory-related control of extrinsic tongue muscle activity. Respir Physiol. 110:295-306
8) Fuller DD, Williams JS, Janssen PL, Fregosi RF. (1999): Effect of co-activation of tongue protrudor and retractor muscles on tongue movements and pharyngeal airflow mechanics in the rat. J Physiol. 2:601-13
9) Wilson JR, Sumner AJ, Eichelman J. (1994): Aberrant reinnervation following hypoglossal nerve damage. Muscle Nerve. 178:931-5
10) Ney T, Goz G. (1993) Force-moment measurements on the passive palatal arch under the influence of the tongue. Fortschr Kieferorthop. 546:249-54
11) Thuer U, Sieber R, Ingervall B. (1999) Cheek and tongue pressures in the molar areas and the atmospheric pressure in the palatal vault in young adults. Eur J Orthod. 21:299-309
12) Frohlich K, Thuer U, Ingervall B. (1991) Pressure from the tongue on the teeth in young adults. Angle Orthod. 61:17-24
13) Saboisky JP, Butler JE, Fogel RB, Taylor JL, Trinder JA, White DP, Gandevia SC. (2006): Tonic and phasic respiratory drives to human genioglossus motoneurons during breathing. J Neurophysiol. 95:2213-21
14) Penzel T, Moller M, Becker HF, Knaack L, Peter JH. (2001): Effect of sleep position and sleep stage on the collapsibility of the upper airways in patients with sleep apnea. Sleep. 24:90-5
15) Neill AM, Angus SM, Sajkov D, McEvoy RD. (1997): Effects of sleep posture on upper airway stability in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 155:199-204
16) Amis TC, O'Neill N, Wheatley JR. (1999): Oral airway flow dynamics in healthy humans. J Physiol. 515:293-8
17) Andrew L. Carney, Evelyn M. Anderson. (1981): Hypoglossal Carotid Entrapment Syndrome. Adv Neurol. 30:223-47
18) Eikermann M, Vogt FM, Herbstreit F, Vahid-Dastgerdi M, Zenge MO, Ochterbeck C, de Greiff A, Peters J. (2007): The predisposition to inspiratory upper airway collapse during partial neuromuscular blockade. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 175:9-15
19) Bademci G, Batay F, Yasargil MG. (2006): "Triple cross" of the hypoglossal nerve and its microsurgical impact to entrapment disorders. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 49:234-7
20) Bademci G, Yasargil MG. (2006): Microsurgical anatomy of the hypoglossal nerve. J Clin Neurosci. 13:841-7
21) Ho AM, Chung DC, Karmakar MK, Gomersall CD, Peng Z, Tay BA. (2006): Dynamic airflow limitation after topical anaesthesia of the upper airway. Anaesth Intensive Care. 34:211-5
22) Liistro G, Stănescu DC, Veriter C, Rodenstein DO, D'Odemont JP. (1992): Upper airway anesthesia induces airflow limitation in awake humans. Am Rev Respir Dis. 146:581-5
23) DeWeese EL, Sullivan TY. (1988): Effects of upper airway anesthesia on pharyngeal patency during sleep. J Appl Physiol. 64:1346-53
24) Koo BB, Dostal J, Ioachimescu O, Budur K. (2007): The effects of gender and age on REM-related sleep-disordered breathing. Sleep Breath. ahead of print
25) Pompeiano O. (1975): The control of posture and movements during REM sleep: neurophysiological and neurochemical mechanisms. Acta Astronaut. 2:225-39
--Paoloplatania (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deletion of all my articles concerning posturology, as I'm new question is: is the author himself responsable of undoing articles ? If so let me know--Paoloplatania (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Paolo, you indicate on WT:MED that this is a field of your interest that you are presently developing. Your sources are all interesting, but they do not tell us how many people apart from you practice posturology, whether there are diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines and professional associations. However fascinating and under-studied this aspect of health science, I cannot presently establish its notability. This does not mean that your theory is wrong, it just means it is not yet ready for inclusion on Wikipedia. Could you comment on Una Smith's assertion that there are links with the Feldenkrais method? JFW | T@lk 10:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem JFW, I perfectly understand my position and I agree that posturology requires way much more effort to have it scientifically aknowledged and only after that it may be exposed over wikipedia, I realise I was attempting to use wikipedia as a widespreading platform in order to arouse scientific interest around my theory but, given it's lack of aknowledgement, it's too early. Answering your question: as far as I know, at present, no existing scientific branch approaches human physiology the way posturology is intended to, moreover no aknowledged posturology degree exists, the urgence is witnessed by the importance of rhe results that I'm attempting to validate and by the fact that an Information Technology prefessional has (hopefully) reached them. Concerning Una Smith's, I agree with what she says, Feldenkrais as well as Alexander and some other, are not scientific approaches, they are methods based on poor empiric and not repeatable evidences, they've founds useful hints to improove self awareness based on voluntary motor activity that incidentally and misteriously improove some symptoms, Alexander, in particular, closely focused on the motor mechanics I work on; aside from the lack of scientific approach, all existing theories and methods FAIL for NOT seeing that postural disorder is the result of emergency motor strategy implemented by reflexive motor activity aimed at supporting insufficiencies in physiologic vital reflexes and overlaying ordiary motor strategies, as such, NOT voluntary undoable and, like all reflexes, spontaneously subsiding after stimulus termination. I find hazardous the comparison between an etiologic theory and all existing empiric methods, to those brave enough to read my stuff it will be clearer why.Paoloplatania (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the best way of doing what you suggest is to see if you can interest one of the alternative medical/experimental medical journals in a review on the topic. Then publish, publish, publish! Tim Vickers (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... or the alternative? JFW | T@lk 08:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Paolo invited to come back in a few years, if the world agrees with his theory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all What are they? Raymond "Giggs" Ko 10:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lack of notability. Axl (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life as an Addict[edit]

Life as an Addict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I could have Prod'ed it or simply deleted it. Album from a non-notable band whose article was deleted today - album thus not meeting notability guidelines. JForget 00:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. This is the third AfD since May, and since the last two were closed as keeps as well, I see no reason to think otherwise here. The fact that some of the sources are dated well after the incident has me convinced that this is not a case of WP:NOT#NEWS — it wasn't just a brief flurry of news coverage for this incident. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 17:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sudanese goat marriage incident[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sudanese goat marriage incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a ridiculous article which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Bstone (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article is ridiculous and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Bstone (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN press fluff. What next? Skateboarding dogs? --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, this is actually the article's fourth AfD - the first two ([92], [93]) were when it was named Rose (goat). DS (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple independent reliable sources over a year apart principally about the incident. Topic is oddbeat, but at least one of the articles not only discusses the incident, but the interest in the incident. (Two previous AFD links added.) Gimmetrow 00:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is well-sourced with independent, reliable sources. It wasn't just a flash-in-the-pan incident in the media either: I've seen reference to the incident long after, usually by conservative commentators who warn that accepting gay marriage will ultimately result in polygamy, and then, legal marriage to animals. It's certainly an odd topic, but the nominator is essentially saying it's "unencyclopedic", which is not really an informative argument to make when proposing deletion. Also, per the previous AfDs — nominated four times? Enough, already! Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "The BBC honoured the animal with a mock obituary." 6 weeks since the last AfD? Please take repeat noms to DRV. Miami33139 (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We do not delete things simply because they are absurd. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and per WP:NOT#NEWS. I can find more coverage for my high school football team. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Good Ol'factory. Perhaps the subject of the article is ridiculous, but the article itself doesn't appear to be. Maxamegalon2000 05:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This is a ridiculous nomination which does not belong here. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a silly subject (so what?), but the article is well-sourced and notability is more than established. – sgeureka t•c 07:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's significant media coverage to establish notability, it's not a sort of "oh, isn't that cute" fluff feature that aired one night on the Toronto evening news. Calgary (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and the result of the previous three discussions. Garion96 (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep simply because this is the most dramatic title I've ever seen for an article. Also, the goat choked on a plastic bag, so I figure we owe it to him. Carson (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous discussions. The nominator doesn't really give much reason beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Darksun (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of significant coverage to establish notability over more than a year so not the routine news coverage of WP:NOTNEWS, also agree with Darksun. Davewild (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was a "water-cooler" story or humorous filler for newscasts, and a mild "internet phenomenon. The "obituary" was described as a joke, and the naming "Rose" was described as a joke. This is not a jokebook. Per WP:NOT#NEWS "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." Per the earlier essay WP:NOTNEWS, "News organizations have different criteria for their content than the criteria used by encyclopedias. A violent crime, sensationalized event or accidental death may be notable enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage in the news, but not be of encyclopedic importance." This was sensational and humorous to some, but was a one-off with no demonstrated lasting importance. Edison (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
meets whatever is passing for our notability standards this week. merging into Human-animal marriage would unbalance the article.Genisock2 (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Flash in the pan, not inherently notable Avi (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ski Channel Film Festival[edit]

The Ski Channel Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable proposed film festival inserted by COI. Tagishsimon (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per the consensus of this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ski Channel[edit]

The Ski Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Promo article for a proposed but not yet extant TV channel. Would appear to be non-notable except to the COI who inserted it into wikipedia Tagishsimon (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a service that is planned to launch in August 2008. Maybe article needs more cleanup after other users added on to this.Msw1002 (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why wouldn't we keep this? It's referenced. Maybe it should have the Template:Future channel added, though. Launch dates do get postponed, so that isn't a reason to delete an article. If we delete this, we might as well delete OWN: The Oprah Winfrey Network mentioned in the Discovery Health Channel article. There is no exact launch date for 2009 for OWN. However, I think both should stay. Rivertown (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The sources aren't primary sources, and seem reliable enough, so I don't think WP:CRYSTAL is being violated here. I'm tempted to just give it the benefit of the doubt, as I'm sure more sources will crop up once the network is closer to launching. Ten Pound Hammer Farfel and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 05:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to see a snowball close at this point, as keep. I think I was a bit pissed off last night that Steve Bellamy, or associates, seem to think that spamming wikipedia is a good thing. The article has been pruned today and is not quite as obnoxious as yesterday's version. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the garbage that was added after I created this page about a year ago. It was over linked with articles that don't exist on Wiki too. I think there is still some room for improvement, but looks better than it was before yesterday. Hopefully, the spam garbage doesn't come back, unless the article is deleted beforehand.Msw1002 (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Shereth 21:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Degrassi: The Next Generation cast members[edit]

List of Degrassi: The Next Generation cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is simply a summarized version of List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters and nothing more. It shows the same information, only less because there aren't any specific details. - k|e|n|g - t | c - 03:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is a primetime soap opera, I tried to give examples of cast listings such as other soap operas have, examples, 1, 2, 3. This info could go on the main page, but i sought the significance of a whole new article. Candyo32 (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But Degrassi isn't a soap opera; it's a teen drama that airs 30 minutes a week. Soap operas generally air everyday, and the examples you cited were of television shows that span many years. Degrassi: The Next Generation is only just going into its 8th season; such a page isn't needed now, and it's doubtful that it will ever be needed as the cast isn't that large. Like I stated above, List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters is sufficient. - k|e|n|g - t | c - 12:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tan ǀ 39 23:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Full Moon Consort[edit]

A Full Moon Consort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BAND. Group released only one album. The only (all non-notable) sources I could find were on blogs or tripod pages. Millbrooky (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable, no significant third-party coverage. A Google News search turns up nothing, while a Google search shows this article as its first result. —  scetoaux (T|C) 05:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the mention in the Post-Dispatch. (I've added the reference to the article just now.) It seems fair to assume that most of the media coverage of the band occurred in the 1970s, and it is more difficult for us to seek out those sources. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on Paul Erik's addition & the apparent associations with other noteworthy phenomena. There may be something useful in old hardcopies of local papers... — Scientizzle 15:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - per User:Paul Erik --T-rex 21:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Tan ǀ 39 22:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Shelf Label[edit]

Electronic Shelf Label (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to be particularly notable, based on this. rootology (T) 03:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 02:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For some reason the nom's search includes a manufacturer. Without that and even with restrictive quotes we get a good number of hits. But I would argue that notability is not that much of a factor; if a thing exists it should be in the encyclopedia. Notability, to my mind, comes into play with a particular instance of a thing, not the thing itself - like a particular song but not song itself. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep Our weekly disruptive Canadian nomination is closed, eh? Non-admin closure, eh? Ten Pound Hammer Farfel and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 04:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Eves[edit]

Ernie Eves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unknown person from Canada. fails WP: Notability. Makato (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete and salted Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceSoft[edit]

ScienceSoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Deleted several times as spam. Clearly created by someone with a COI. I am prepared to give them an AfD. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_23&oldid=1116722208"